More advice from the worst presidential ticket in history, please

[Ta-Nehisi]

Well folks, it's been thrilling being here. I want to thank Matt for letting me house-sit for the week, especially in such estimable company. Anyway I figured I'd go out on a humorous note, and what's more humorous than Geraldine Ferraro these days? Via Balloon Juice:

As for Reagan Democrats, how Clinton was treated is not their issue. They are more concerned with how they have been treated. Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.

Whom he chooses for his vice president makes no difference to them. That he is pro-choice means little. Learning more about his bio doesn't do it. They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate. His experience with an educated single mother and being raised by middle class grandparents is not something they can empathize with. They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid. What they're waiting for is assurance that an Obama administration won't leave them behind.

Get it? When you think an Ivy-educated black couple is elitist, but think an Ivy-educated white couple is the salt of the earth, you aren't a racist you just resent black people racially. Big Difference. I mean, you wouldn't attend a Klan rally or anything, but elect Barack and soon they'll be marrying your daughters. I would offer a rebuttal, but Colson Whitehead closed the book on this months ago:

I’m confused, myself. For years, they said you can’t have this because you’re black, and then when you get something the same people say you got that only because you’re black. I mean, here I am, The Guy Who Got Where He Is Only Because He’s Black, and yet the higher up you go in an organization, the less you see of me.

It’s as if Someone Out to Prevent Me From Getting What I Worked For is preventing me from getting what I worked for. If only there were something — a lapel pin or other sartorial accessory — that would reassure people that I can do the job.

Some people say Barack Obama and I get everything handed to us on a silver platter. But we don’t let it bother us. We’re taking those silver platters and making them our canoes. Then we’ll grab our silver spoons and paddle to a place where people get us. North Carolina, maybe. Or Indiana. I hear Oregon is nice this time of year. We’ll paddle on, brother, paddle all the way to the top.

One last question. I was only nine when Ferraro ran in 84. Was she really this much of an idiot then? Or has time done a number on her?

Comments

i just learned that her issue, representing "archie bunker" queens, ny, was busing. so she's always been a racial resentment kind of gal.

Posted by jay | May 31, 2008 8:15 AM

I was working in the New York delegation when she was a House member. She came in as the anti-busing candidate and never wavered. She was, by far, the most conservative member of the delegation. It was amazing that she was plucked from obscurity by Mondale but without that she would be remembered not at all. She was never a racial liberal. Never. She's not senile. This is who she is.

Posted by MJ Rosenberg | May 31, 2008 8:16 AM

Compare Ferraro's op-ed written for the public at-large, to Rev Pfleger's remarks which were delivered to parishioners in a church, and the amount of media attention and criticism each got.

Both were equally reprehensible imho, but Pfleger wasn't a surrogate to Obama's campaign who had to resign for what were widely regarded as racially insensitive remarks (and that's me being too kind to Ferraro) and yet she still has been grabbing as much media attention as she can ever since to echo and amplify them. Ferraro's been more in the limelight and overtly in the tank for Clinton than before she supposedly left the campaign, which for all intents and purposes, she hasn't.

If anything, that just helps back up most of what Pfleger, who has never been a part of Obama's campaign nor is he even a priest in Obama's church, said.

Posted by Bill W. | May 31, 2008 8:49 AM

Time does a number on everyone. Look at Bill Clinton this cycle, if you don't believe me.

Posted by John Shreffler | May 31, 2008 8:50 AM

Yeah, she was always this crazy.

Posted by Lesley | May 31, 2008 9:02 AM

There is a reason she lost then and went into relative obscurity.

She wasn't a very good candidate then, and time has not improved her.

Posted by Clint | May 31, 2008 9:05 AM

Bill,
Pfleger was a part of Obama's campaign up until 2 weeks ago. He had a minor role as in the Catholics for Obama outreach program. His resignation was prior to the event

Other than that you're spot on.

Posted by bjd | May 31, 2008 9:17 AM

Actually, I would argue that the initial Democratic ticket in 1972 of McGovern and Eagleton was even worse in terms of ineptitude. I doubt that either party has run a more incompetent candidate then George McGovern.

Posted by SLC | May 31, 2008 9:18 AM

Time does a number on everyone. Look at Bill Clinton this cycle, if you don't believe me.

Posted by John Shreffler

Time and the fact of being left behind by the march of history. Something happens to an also-ran....

Ferraro hasn't gotten this much attention since '84, and clearly enjoys it.

Posted by Jim | May 31, 2008 9:29 AM

I do not find Ferraro's article amusing in the least. Reading it yesterday made me vaguely ill.

Why isn't Clinton being asked to denounce her? Every time someone speaks in an inflammatory tone that is associated with Obama, there's a rallying cry for him to cut them to shreds.

But, no, at this point "we" are treating Clinton with kid gloves. Don't want to alienate her supporters now, do we, even if many of them are as deluded as Ms. Ferraro (or worse).

Posted by jhr | May 31, 2008 10:01 AM

Mondale was also considering Diane Feinstein as his VP pick, and from the perspective of hindsight that would have been a much better choice. I was OK with Ferraro, but at the time I was only fourteen.

Its a commentary on our system that Ferraro was far from the worst, or the most obscure, running mate in the post-World War II elections. Aside from Cheney and Eagleton, both really bad selections for different reasons, presidential candidates have selected John Sparkman, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., William Miller, Spiro Agnew, and Dan Quayle, all of who have had as little justification for being on a national ticket as Ferraro. Its as if politicians think we are still in the nineteenth century and the Vice Presidency is just not that important.

Posted by Ed | May 31, 2008 10:01 AM

As Colbert pointed out when Ferraro first started making an ass of herself, once you turn 70 you're allowed to say anything you want about black people.

Posted by aleks | May 31, 2008 10:06 AM

1) What I don't really understand is why no one is challenging Ferraro and Hillary on this bullshit.

2) The Clintons --and their financial patrons -- have fucked white Appalachia FAR more than anything Obama could ever do.

3)I grew up in Appalachia --although I managed to go to college and get out. During Bill Clinton's Administration, my coal mining home town had an unemployment rate of 35 PERCENT -- and that rate declined only after a huge chunk of the population packed up and moved elsewhere. Taking bankruptcy on their house because their house was worth less than the mortgage.

Bill Clinton did NOTHING to help the Great Depression like economy that swept over Appalachia during his Administration.

4) In fact, he fucked the people --with NAFTA, globalization, tax hikes on payrolls taxes for Social Security and Medicare (which was supposed to "fix" the deficit but which in 2001 went into the pockets of the richest 2 percent of American.)

5) JESSE JACKSON has shown far more concern for the white people of Appalachia -- and has been a far stronger advocate on their behalf --than the Clintons ever were.

6) The BASIC PROBLEM is that Ferraro and the Clintons is get away with their deceitful narratives because the Obama campaign and the news media does NOT challenge Hillary on the FACTS.

7) The same rich elites who have been fucking the black blue collar people of the cities for decades have also been fucking the white blue collar people of Appalachia for decades.

Hillary claims to be the champion of the working class -- while betraying the working class --so that she doesn't have to become a member of the working class.

Posted by Don Williams | May 31, 2008 10:08 AM

This is my advice to Geraldine:

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

followed by:

"When digging yourself a hole, stop digging."

Posted by ET | May 31, 2008 10:38 AM

As was said on Balloon Juice, there are few people less qualified to lecture everyone else on how to 'win' the "Reagan Democrats" than the people who lost them all the first time.

Posted by El Cid | May 31, 2008 10:42 AM

Leaving racism out of the argument, I think we have a lot of class identification going on here. While the Clintons have a wealthy background/lifestyle, they are careful to dress, and talk like members of the middle class. Obama, clearly dresses and talks like a member of the intellectual elite. So Hillary is able to be seen as one of them -despite her $147million, while Obama, who gave up his ticket to wall street wealth to work for the poor, is seen as the member of the elite.

Posted by bigTom | May 31, 2008 10:47 AM

There were a lot of people stupid enough to be fooled by George Bush Jr's fake Texan populist put-on's to think that particular aristocrat was a common man too. The fact that people can find ridiculously unimportant signifiers more important than factual indicators of reality is not new.

Posted by El Cid | May 31, 2008 10:56 AM

As was said on Balloon Juice, there are few people less qualified to lecture everyone else on how to 'win' the "Reagan Democrats" than the people who lost them all the first time.

Couldn't have said it better.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | May 31, 2008 11:49 AM

I was 23 in 1984. As I recall, she pretty much didn't say much of anything about racial issues during that presidential campaign. And I had left New York for college right around the time she got elected to the House. So, though I'll take MJ Rosenberg's better informed word about her never being a racial liberal (and I do remember busing being a big issue around the time I left for college), she wasn't exactly playing to racial resentment while she was running for vice president. The worst you could say of her at that time was that she wasn't an especially experienced VP candidate, and, as Ed says, she had a whole lot of company there. I could even see where there'd be an argument, at the time, for deeming her better supplied with appropriate experience than Feinstein (at that time mayor of San Francisco), though Feinstein over the long run has proved more politically competent.

Posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax | May 31, 2008 11:51 AM

Ferraro's comments are without tact or grace and it's rather absurd to hear Walter Mondale's running mate speak on behalf of 'Reagan Democrats.'
However, mock what she says at your own peril. Everything she's saying has a degree of truth. If Obama and particularly his supporters continue spitting vile on working class white people in this country because they're not drunk on Obama Kool-aid, this big Democratic upswing will evaporate quickly and these people will go back to the Republicans who will take them in with open arms. It's quite simple. NO ONE likes being called a racist, stupid hick, particularly people who aren't racist stupid hicks.
There are many reasons not to be enthralled with Obama. He's EASILY the least qualified candidate for president to get this far in an election (not that HRC is much better) his speeches which his supporters think are so great strike a lot of people, myself included as pompous, self-serving and full of empty rhetoric; and he uses his own racial identity to advance himself - nothing wrong with that but when you're supporters call non-supporters racists for not going along with it, it engenders serious dislike.
So keep calling Geraldine Ferraro a racist pig all you like. But don't forget that black men had the right to vote 60 years before white women did.

Posted by Nathan | May 31, 2008 12:05 PM

ferraro had two things to recommend her in 84 - she was a woman and she did for middle-aged hair styling what dorothy hamill had done for that of teeny boppers eight years earlier.

Posted by deeluzon | May 31, 2008 12:09 PM

Hilzoy may have the definitive response to Ferraro, here.

Posted by John B. | May 31, 2008 12:11 PM

Yeah Black men had the right to vote before whites. But there were no Jim Crow laws, or voter intimidation, or outright assault on white women when they tried to exercise their right to vote.

Also, somewhat analogous to today's issue. One way for "the man" to keep black folk from voting was to keep changing the rules late in the game.

Sound familiar!

Posted by lh | May 31, 2008 12:23 PM

Keep ranting, Don Williams. Never gets old.

The Democratic elite (you know, New York and California liberals -- if not the DC guys who finally won with Clinton in '92) have been trying to help places like Appalachia for decades.

Sadly, they, also, tried to help black people and gays so your Appalachia wasn't having it.

My New Jersey Catholic highschool had us on a trip building houses in Kentucky thirty years ago. My in-laws in NY vote every four years for a Democrat who will tax them more in the hope of helping America's less fortunate. A lot of good any of it does when the the salt of the earth types ("the real Americans", the heterosexual, poorly educated, White Protestants of rural America) continually reject liberalism.

You, yourself, carry on a tradition of select indignation, massive self-pity, free floating rage and loathing (those NY Jews can be pretty scary for a man like you, huh?), but you haven't the excuse of total ignorance or poverty.

Boo hoo hoo.

Cry me a river.

Posted by Eugene | May 31, 2008 12:25 PM

She's pathetic.
"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race" – Geraldine Ferraro, April 14, 1988

Posted by eric c | May 31, 2008 12:27 PM

Ferraro's record in congress was abysmal. Her candidacy for the vice-presidency was a drag on Mondale with her husband and their well-documented criminal activity in real estate and gambling casino transactions.

She has a long documented history of racist comments, including statements made against Jesse Jackson: "If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," Geraldine Ferraro, April 15, 1988, from the Washington Post. She is a disgrace as an American, as a democrat, and as human being.

It's odd that a priest saying that HRC felt 'entitled' to the nomination is treated as a sexist nut case, when well respected political analysts have repeatedly said the same thing. It's all propaganda, regardless of its source. The subtext is racist and in truth, is barely a subtext. This will go on until Obama finishes his second term. He will be reviled just as King, Ali, F. Douglas and hundreds of thousands of other famous and not so famous black Americans have been, until they are either dead or their voices are silenced. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who hated King or Ali on January 1, 1968, who would admit to that today.

Pause.

Think about that for a long time.

Search your conscience. Be true to the best in yourself. Don't get trapped in the comfortable mindset of American white cultural domination.

PS. Religion and politics don't mix. EVER. When they do it poisons the discussion and brings out the worst in some people. Even a cursory look at history will confirm that without exception.

Posted by Marc Adin | May 31, 2008 12:30 PM

@ Nathan:

"NO ONE likes being called a racist, stupid hick, particularly people who aren't racist stupid hicks."

Or to put it another way:

No one likes being called a racist, stupid hick, particularly people who are racist, stupid hicks.

I mean, I'd like to believe the best about my fellow Americans, really I would, but when I watch this: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_and_appallachia.php
I know deep-down in my small-town-raised bones that this is exactly how a whole lot of people think. Because they are, in fact, racist, stupid hicks. They're also Americans, and much of what democracy means is that people like this must be part of the polity, much be represented, must be catered to. But... well, but it does make me despair.

Posted by That Fuzzy Bastard | May 31, 2008 12:38 PM

Nathan,

It is and is not true that black men had the right to vote 60 years before white women did. It is true in that a Constitutional amendment gave black men the right to vote. It is not true in that a whole set of state laws, and not just in the American South, made that right to vote effectively an empty letter. There was no comparable set of laws limiting white women's right to vote instituted by any state once the US Constitution was amended to provide for white women's rights to vote. Nor for that matter were there practices like redlining aimed at white women and so forth.

This does not make Ferraro a racist, or you one for that matter. But it does mean that some of Ferraro's statements about Obama are at best mere resentment.

Please take a close look at what Don Williams wrote above. It fits well with what I remember; I was a grad student thru most of the Clinton years, living amongst the working class because thats what I could afford. The anger and resentment around me then and visible in some of my community college students now is powerful and real, but not well thought through or keenly focused in many cases.

Ferraro is, perhaps, a good example of a type. She came up through law school and the old boys clubs the hard way; this has stayed with her and lies close to the surface in many of her public statements. She was a District Attorney and worked a lot of rape cases; thats got to live on in you. She didn't want her kids bused. But busing was always an ambiguous matter. She is the daughter or granddaughter, I forget which, of Italian immigrants; they never owned slaves, so America's historic problem with race wasn't, in their minds at least, part of their past the way anti-Catholic or anti-Italian sentiments had been. Ferraroe isn't a racist in anything like the sense Governor/Senator Bilbo of Mississippi was, or Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was, or even the way George Wallace of Alabama was before he was shot and began to change his ways and mind.

But still, thats no excuse for saying its easier for Obama because he's black.

A lot of women are quite truly and probably very legitimately angry and resentful because of their hopes for HRC and their disappointment that her historic campaign is coming to an end. They also quite rightly can say that HRC has had a lot of abuse handed out to her because HRC is a woman.

But still, thats no excuse for saying its easier for Obama because he's black.

Posted by djeri | May 31, 2008 12:47 PM

One more thing. The Clinton campaign's strategic philosophy came directly and without modification from the Republican Party. It is an obvious and destructive calculation: pit white 'working class' [read: poor] voters against blacks. They cancel each others votes out, and their political clout is lost. The consequent loss of political power of both groups is demonstrated by the continuation of federal policy over the past 45 years, that has ignored or dismissed the millions of Americans represented by the two groups.

Both the Clinton's and the Republican's should be condemned for this betrayal of our fellow citizens.

I think Don Williams [above] has it exactly right.

One of the many promises of Obama is his rejection the disturbed and destructive mindset of the Clintons and the Republicans.

Posted by Marc Adin | May 31, 2008 12:55 PM

If Obama and particularly his supporters continue spitting vile on working class white people in this country

Personally, I think Hillary Rodham Welleslely Yale Rose Law Georgetown Chappaqua Loaned-myself-twelve-million-to-pay-Mark-Penn-and-stiffed-small-businesses Clinton's relentless, transparent and condescending pandering ("Let's have the debate in the bed of this red pick up truck I rented from the place Lamar and Fred used!") is far more insulting than whatever "vile" (I think you mean "bile") you've made up in your own head.

But, whatever.

Posted by Jim | May 31, 2008 1:02 PM

Sure, it's tough being a woman. After all, Ferraro's gender had nothing to do with her being the Dem's 1984 VP candidate. Nope, she was picked because Mondale felt that in order to win he desperately needed an obscure 3 term member of the House whose husband was mired in scandal.

Posted by kafka | May 31, 2008 1:11 PM

""When digging yourself a hole, stop digging."

Posted by ET | May 31, 2008 10:38 AM"

Apparently the Clinton campaign is following the Homer Simpson strategy: "Dig up, stupid!"

To racist people, accusing them of racism is somehow racist. It's basically the racial politics version of "I know you are, but what am I?" After all, it would be dumb for a homophobe to turn around and go, "you know what gays, I'm not the homophobe, YOU'RE the homophobe!"

Ferraro has been missing from our national discourse for almost 25 years now except as a punchline. All she's done since she returned to the spotlight is show why she's a punchline. At least when Sinbad came back into the spotlight in this election, he was actually informative and coherent and funnier than he actually was in the 90's. Ferraro is now just a female Archie Bunker 35 years out of date.

Posted by Reality Man | May 31, 2008 1:17 PM

Also, the only official campaign spokespeople calling Clinton supporters racist are from... the Clinton campaign. They keep on insinuating their supporters won't vote for the black guy. Ferraro here pretty much calls them racist. Stay classy, Clintons.

Posted by Reality Man | May 31, 2008 1:21 PM

She disappeared into obscurity largely because her hubby turned out to have "financial issues" and so her candidacy was embarrassing. Go away, said the folks who count. And she went away.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 31, 2008 1:24 PM

I am a working class native-Southern white male, and I am currently applauding the possibility that the nasty, reactionary decades-old Southern Republican hold on national politics is being steadily reduced by liberal Democrats strengthening their bases in the Northeast, Midwest, West, and Pacific Northwest.

As a Southerner, I am actively cheering our upcoming reduced role in elections.

So this notion that any good white male working class voter in the Southern / Appalachian region is crying out for a greater national 'voice' is quite incorrect, and terrible for the nation.

Posted by El Cid | May 31, 2008 1:28 PM

El Cid wrote:

As a Southerner, I am actively cheering our upcoming reduced role in elections.

I am a Southerner as well, and white and male, but not working class. I agree with El Cid. Though I would note that some Southern cities are reasonably liberal places by national standards.

Posted by djeri | May 31, 2008 1:46 PM

Nathan, Obama and his supporters aren't calling working class whites Racist, Hillary is.

She really can't make her argument that white people will never vote for Obama without arguing that they are racist. The entire crux of her campaign has been that white people are racist for two months now.

Posted by soullite | May 31, 2008 2:23 PM

As djeri mentioned, we liberals and Democrats in both the South and the whole nation ought be damned thankful for the incredibly loyal Democratic votes of African Americans, particularly those from Southern cities such as Atlanta -- without them, there would be no Democratic Congressional majority right now.

Instead, once again, this time thanks to this bullsh*t nomination battle, we fetishize not realistic and popular appeals to voters of other backgrounds in the South who just might actually vote Democrat and liberal, but the exact people who vote Republican over and over and over -- only they are "real" constituents who are "Real Americans".

F*ck this nonsense.

Posted by El Cid | May 31, 2008 2:28 PM

"Nathan, Obama and his supporters aren't calling working class whites Racist, Hillary is."

An insane lie, by an insane.

Posted by Jennifer | May 31, 2008 3:36 PM

"Nathan, Obama and his supporters aren't calling working class whites Racist, Hillary is."

An insane lie, by an insane liar.

Posted by Jennifer | May 31, 2008 3:42 PM

Ta Nehisi you have to learn to see both sides of a question. Don't be so quick to divide, split and privilege just one of two excellent choices.

She was an idiot then and time has done a number on her.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | May 31, 2008 4:02 PM

They played down her views in '84 - the idea being "Hey. she's a woman, how 'bout that?!" And, it wasn't as if Reagan/Bush were Phil Donahue and Jonathan Kozel on race. But, all you have to do is take one look at that sewer-faced mug of hers to know where she's coming room.

Posted by Trevor | May 31, 2008 4:14 PM

"An insane lie, by an insane liar."

Now Jennifer, no one is talking about Hillary's adventures in Bosnia on this thread. Why bring it up again?

Or if you actually are insinuating that Obama's campaign has called anyone racist, then I suggest you pony up the proof. (This doesn't include any statements made by random supporters on various internet fora -- despite all the nonsensical "Messiah" and "Kool-Aid" BS, Obama voters actually work and think independently of campaign HQ.) Otherwise, the assertions that Hillary has made that she wins with "hardworking Americans, white Americans," among oh-so-many other charming moments (including Clinton supporter Gov. Ed Rendell saying that white people in PA are too racist to vote for Obama) stand as proof that the people calling working-class whites inherently racist work for the Clinton team.

Posted by Kerry Reid | May 31, 2008 4:34 PM

The eclipse of the Clinton phase of the Democratic party is hard to look at, frightening for some, and will take a long time to be fully completed. At which point they will not be gone, just eclipsed.

Posted by Far Rider | May 31, 2008 5:06 PM

Re Eugene's comment "Keep ranting, Don Williams. Never gets old.

The Democratic elite (you know, New York and California liberals -- if not the DC guys who finally won with Clinton in '92) have been trying to help places like Appalachia for decades"
------------
1) Gee, I suppose that's why the area is such a fucking garden spot,eh?

2) Lets LOOK at the DATA for how Bill Clinton "HELPED" one Appalachian county in the 1990s:

a) 1990 Median House Value: $41,700
1990 Median House Value in 2000 dollars (i.e.,
adjusted for inflation): $57,747
b) Actual 2000 Median House Value: $55,400

c) 1989 Median Household Income: $19,851
1989 Median Household Income in 1999 dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation): $27,863

d) Actual 1999 Median Household Income: $22,213

Ref: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTSelectedDatasetPageServlet

3) So during the Clintonian Economic Boom of the 1990s, the value of these peoples homes fell and their household income REALLY fell, when adjusted for inflation.

4) But I guess wealthy Democrats don't like it when uppity hillbillies complain any more than wealthy Republicans like it when the "Negros" complain.

5) After all, this is the result of some undefined Law of the Universe, not due to any "Policy". Right?

6) Bill Clinton decides to "balance the budget" by raising payroll taxes on the poorest blue collar workers? And by screwing Railroad Workers and Retired Soldiers out of their Social Security?

Well, you can hardly have expected him to balance the budget by raising taxes on WEALTHY, now can you?

After all, the wealthy gave tens of $MILLIONS to his campaign -- whereas poor blue collar workers give ..er.. considerably less.

7) Bill Clinton drives down wages and jobs by letting in 10 million legal immigrants and roughly 10 million more illegal immigrants? Well, how else is he going to win the Hispanic swing vote in California, Texas, and Florida?

8) Bill Clinton and the Democrats control the Congress in 1992-1994 but do NOTHING to restore the Fairness Doctrine in the News media and to reform Campaign Finance?

Well, Democratic Billionaires like Haim Saban like to buy Members of Congress just as much as do Republican Billionaires. After all, what do you think that $500 Million per election is buying? Good Government?

9) Bill Clinton throws 40 percent of the Army out on the street after they win the Cold War -- and doesn't offer a James Webb GI Bill to help the transition? Well, again, that would require raising taxes on the WEALTHY. See above: $500 Million , donations of.

10) Besides , those military guys could work on Al Gore's Internet. Just need to learn programming. And then accept wages less than those foreign workers coming in under the 1 million H1B Visas approved by Bill Clinton in 1998.

But ,hey, Microsoft and Silicon Valley billionaires gave a lot of campaign donations.

11) Besides, Bill Clinton passed NAFTA so that all those Mexican billionaires could come into Appalachia and set up factories providing high paying jobs. It's gonna happen. Any day now.

Posted by Don Williams | May 31, 2008 5:07 PM

Re Eugene's comment "A lot of good any of it does when the the salt of the earth types ("the real Americans", the heterosexual, poorly educated, White Protestants of rural America) continually reject liberalism. "
------------
Maybe that's because the hillbillies look over at the African-Americans --who have voted roughly 90 percent Democratic for decades -- and notice that most blue collar blacks get fucked just as badly as the white blue collar Republicans.

Ask Jesse Jackson how receptive Bill Clinton was to the Rainbow Coalition.

Posted by Don Williams | May 31, 2008 5:17 PM

Oh, Don Williams, yes, Af-Am's often get f*cked by Democrats. But in large numbers they rationally decided -- correctly -- that they were f*cked less by the Democrats who took them for granted than the Republican politicians who hated them and in fact ran their entire campaign against phantom greedy welfare negroes.

This notion that black people only vote Democrat because they're all starry-eyed stupid about how Democrats will prize them above all is the most ridiculous criticism I've ever heard. It's a rational decision, one which involves a pretty accurate choice of sh*tty over sh*ttier.

Posted by El Cid | May 31, 2008 5:44 PM

I mean, you wouldn't attend a Klan rally or anything, ...

Funny, that you use this turn of phrase. It's how I often describe my mother's racism. She's really, really racist, but wouldn't really to anything about it. Probably the most staggering thing she ever said to me was, "I hope you're not taking the kids to see The Lion King, it's just so jungle-bunnyish." I'm not even sure what that means.

Posted by Mr. Dave | May 31, 2008 6:35 PM

Mr Dave, it's sad that your mother holds those views, but your post is very very funny.

Posted by David from England | June 1, 2008 7:28 AM

Ferraro? Feh. I second what others have said: people who lost "Reagan Democrats" are those who should STFU about getting back "Reagan Democrats"; "Reagan Democrats" is just wishful thinking code for "white working class GOP voters".

Busing issues were before my time following American politics, so I ask people to help me out here. My own brief research stroll through the internet leaves me with the uncomfortable feeling that quite a few of those advocating busing were avoiding the bigger issue: decent schools and decent neighbourhoods for African Americans, period. Busing (from my admittedly new and shallow look at it) seems, arguably, to have been a way for a lot of liberal judges and politicians to feel good about themselves by taking African American and white kids out of their neighbourhoods and moving them around rather than solving the much harder underlying class, economic and de facto segregation issues.

The racists seem to have been energized by it rather than minimized, which one would expect if a progressive policy was effective. And busing's proponents seem to have given very little if any thought about how important local is to schooling, children and parents. (Hell, try shutting down a local school and sending the kids to a less local but still excellent school and watch the resulting firestorm.) At the very least the issue seems to have been badly handled by its proponents.

Help me out. Is my first take on this at least partly right or have I got a totally mistaken read on this?

Posted by seeker6079 | June 1, 2008 8:16 AM

i'm probably too late to this thread, but if anyone is out there can they link me to racist things obama has supposed said?
i missed that talking point.
thanks

Posted by dj spellchecka | June 1, 2008 2:02 PM