« Interesting Times | Main | Precedents » Obama and Appallachia22 May 2008 10:27 am Very interesting report from Al-Jazeera. It's hard to imagine an American news outlet's report cutting so deep: This is obviously an awkward subject. Hillary Clinton and her supporters haven't wanted to acknowledge that their ranks have, to some extent, been swelled by racism. At the same time, insofar as Obama looks likely to lose a substantial number of voters purely because of race that is a real, if unseemly, tactical objection to giving him the nomination. Comments (89)
Obama loses votes due to racism for sure. But to argue that that is a reason not to nominate him is fundametnally incompatible with Democratic party values. It is unacceptable. 
First, finding random people to confirm your pre-conceived story line is not "cutting deep". Second, for all we know Obama's race will bring him more voters in the general election than it will lose him.
I would think that Al Jazeera would be a lot less welcome in Appalachia than Obama.
Nothing like some good old racism and ignorance (they actually think Barack is a Muslim) to make us feel great about America. Got to love how all the tv pundits are "wondering" why Obama isn't winning W.Va. and Kentucky when "everyone" knows Hillary isn't going to win the nomination. Because clearly this means Barack can't seal the deal and dems are having buyers remore. I'm sure the answer to that question has nothing to do with the fact that most of Hillary's supporters in those states can barely do math, don't know the difference between a superdelegate and a pledged delegate, have never heard of Chuck Todd, and belive the gas tax hiliday is a great move economically.
But to argue that that is a reason not to nominate him for that reason is fundametnally incompatible with Democratic party values. It is unacceptable. Unless you're Tim K. If you're Tim K, the solution is to give in to the racists.
I used to think that most people who would never vote for a black man wouldn't likely vote for a Democrat anyway. Then I got to know Hillary's base.
For once DTM and I agree: I think Obama race has been a net positive, at least so far. In November who knows, but I don't think it's going to cost him the election. On the other hand, for Obama's supporters in the media like Matthew Yglesias and Andrew Sullivan to continue implying that the exact same voters Obama will need to win this election are racists is not going to be helpful. Allow me emphasize that last point. Obama has the Kerry and Gore voters. Who Obama needs are the voters who voted for Clinton in the nineties, but voted for Bush over Kerry and Gore. Many of these same people are voting for his wife now. Calling these people racist is not a recipe for success.
I somewhat agree with DTM - I think the votes that Obama loses from racism are more than compensated for by the increase in African American turnout. The votes he loses because of race were probably Republican votes anyway. Also not included are the masses who will vote Obama in the general just to say that they voted for the first black President. To paraphrase Edwards - "To stand aside and let history be made".
The most interesting, and telling, interview in that segment was Oakley Delong, who stated flatly that he was worried about retribution. "We treated the negroes so bad for so long, if they get in charge, won't they do the same to us?" Guilt, shame, retribution, and vengeance. Ain't that America.
By the way, I have very mixed feelings about the recent media coverage of the Appalachian issue. On the one hand, I am glad the people in the media finally looked at a map and figured out Clinton's advantage among lower-income white people was regional and not national. On the other hand, I am disappointed that the media cannot seem to grasp that these people might be voting FOR Clinton, largely because they really like Bill Clinton, and so are voting for the Clintons collectively, more than they are voting AGAINST Obama, the theory being they are just a bunch of racists. And unfortunately, Clinton has been complicit in all this, because her current arguments depend on the notion that these people are voting against Obama and not for her (and hence will also vote against Obama when the other choice is McCain, or presumably any other white person). And that of course is one of the saddest things about Clinton's campaign to date: not only has she repeatedly insulted the members of Obama's coalition, but now she is also reduced to implicitly insulting her own coalition.
The honesty was quite refreshing.
I lived in West Virginia and spent a good amount of time in Eastern Kentucky. They're both beautiful, heart-breaking areas. A big reason for the racism is that the coal companies brought blacks up from the South to break the unions and drive down wages. They played off the historic distrust of blacks and drove a permanent wedge between the races. Go to the poorest parts of Appalachia, say Welch, WV, and even there blacks are still second class citizens. Throw in the lack of education, and a natural distrust of outsiders, and Obama never had a chance. Fortunately, those two states aren't actually swing states. Obama stands a slightly better chance in Pa. and Ohio with these same folks, but he'll win by compensating in other parts of the states.
I actually think Oakley Delong expresses what a ton of white folks actually believe.
I somewhat agree with DTM - I think the votes that Obama loses from racism are more than compensated for by the increase in African American turnout. Good point. So he should be fine as long as there isn't, oh, a massive Republican effort to purge African-Americans from the voting lists or anything like that. But that won't happen. (Again.)
Hey, I think Justin Webb interviewed these same people on BBC. Except then they were from West Virginia.
I continue to be amazed at how much better Al-Jazeera's English language cable news coverage is compared to CNN, MSNBC and Fox. They seem to have discovered that reporting news and not having a bunch of cable shoutfests are better.
It's ironic that the guy near the end, as downtrodden a person as you'd ever hope to see living in the richest country on earth, is worried about being trod down even more by an Obama administration as retribution for the sins white folks committed against black folks for most of our history. If this guy is really willing to vote for universal healthcare, responsible environmental stewardship, an end to the Iraq disaster and economic justice for the poor and middle class if Hillary's the nominee, but against all that if Obama is the nominee, then he, rather than those radical blacks and other assorted elitist liberals he fears so much, is the author of his misery. Of course, there's nothing new in that observation - what's new is that he's being abetted in this delusion by two of the leading standard-bearers of the Democratic Party.
I used to think that most people who would never vote for a black man wouldn't likely vote for a Democrat anyway. Then I got to know Hillary's base. But according to exit poll data and looking at past history in these states (KY, in particular) a very large chunk of these "Democrats" have voted for the Republican the last several cycles. Tim K. and others believe that they can be won back in the general with the right candidate (i.e. Hillary) but it seems more likely that as the Democratic party has become more "liberal" at the national level (or at least they are perceived to be so), these voters have become less likely to vote for the national party ticket. We can't extrapolate from Clinton's primary win any information about whether these people would vote for her in November. My impression is that as the demographics in the country have begun shifting in a more favorable Democratic direction (more socially tolerant, more minority), these Appalachian voters become more entrenched in their suspicion of the other (blacks, latinos, gays, elitists, etc.) and are now more comfortable among the Republican coalition. The argument that Bill Clinton won them in '92 and '96 I think overlooks these hardening attitudes. We wouldn't argue that a party-line Democrat could win over white voters in Alabama, and I think we've hit a point where no national party Democrat can be expected to win these poor white voters here either.
Hey, you illiterate redneck rube, at least use spellcheck for your headlines! Man those Appalachian schools haven't improved since Bobby!
At least SOMEBODY is pointing out that "working class" is being used as a euphemism for "racist". Appalachia is unique (in America) insofar as a lot of the racists are also diehard Democrats (due to historical labor issues). These people won't vote for a black man (and I've got news, they won't vote for a white woman either) so the quickest strategy is to try to keep them from voting for McCain. Luckily, it's by its nature a small segment of the population (except in WV and KY).
I also think there are a nontrivial number of suburban white moderates (often independents and Republicans) who see Obama's race as a positive attribute. These people tend to see themselves as non-racists who believe strongly in a color-blind and meritocratic society, and supporting Obama actually confirms this self-view. Moreover, I think they often view his statements on race to date to be reasonable and positive. Of course, since race is not the only or most important factor for these people, it is difficult to measure exactly how many marginal voters these effects actually contribute to Obama's coalition. But again, for all we know when you add up all such people, it would be greater than the number of racists who would vote for a white Democrat but not a black one. Which, incidentally, is part of why Tim K is not right about Obama needing to rebuild the Clinton coalition. In addition to the fact that the voter population has changed somewhat from 1992 to 2008, another reason Obama's coalition can and will look different is that he has an opportunity to pick off a lot of independents and Republicans who were not Bill Clinton voters (and likely would not end up being Hillary Clinton voters either)--and note in Bill Clinton's case, a lot of these people were Perot voters. But to be clear, I also don't think in the end Obama will lose too many Clinton voters anyway--I think the actual racists are not going to add up to a huge percentage of her coalition. My point is just that I think Obama will also be bringing a large number of his own voters to the table, ones not gotten before by any of Kerry, Gore, or Clinton.
The most interesting, and telling, interview in that segment was Oakley Delong, who stated flatly that he was worried about retribution. "We treated the negroes so bad for so long, if they get in charge, won't they do the same to us?" I have in-laws who honestly think that if Obama's elected, 'the blacks' are going to head out from the inner-cities to the exurbs to steal their trucks and lawn tractors. Poor Tim K seems to be fixated on Bill Clinton's electoral map, and on the idea of -- oh, let's use that word -- appeasing people who vote their prejudices. I'll incline to the Rude Pundit: Maybe, just maybe, the reign of the nigger haters is over. Racism is a form of idiocy. The country may be deciding that it's time not to let the stupid people run the joint, that, being stupid, they actually need to be led, maybe even out of their stupidity.
I lived in West Virginia and spent a good amount of time in Eastern Kentucky. They're both beautiful, heart-breaking areas. A big reason for the racism is that the coal companies brought blacks up from the South to break the unions and drive down wages. They played off the historic distrust of blacks and drove a permanent wedge between the races. Go to the poorest parts of Appalachia, say Welch, WV, and even there blacks are still second class citizens. Throw in the lack of education, and a natural distrust of outsiders, and Obama never had a chance. Fortunately, those two states aren't actually swing states. Obama stands a slightly better chance in Pa. and Ohio with these same folks, but he'll win by compensating in other parts of the states.
Reviewing the bidding: 1) Most of the votes Obama can't get due to racism were going to be GOP votes anyway.
DTM: You show an amazing ability to interpret all information that you come across as supporting the most optimistic possible scenario for Barack Obama. Very interesting organizing principle. I should not even have to point this out, because it is so obvious, but part of winning elections is having to win over the votes of some parts of the electorate that would not normally be predisposed to voting for you. In this case these are people who haven't voted for a Democrat since the last time a Democrat won. Now one strategy is taking real voters who were Clinton voters who switched to Bush voters and ask how we can coax them to switch back their support. Another strategy is to take some pool of imaginary voters of Republican defectors, evidenced by sporadic and anecdotal interviews at Obama rallies, and assume Obama will win them.
One thing that comes up in passing in the story, but without explanation so it presumably makes little sense to al jazeera's target audience is that Kentucky generally thinks of itself as split between its Appalachian half and what the one non-Appalachian women in the story refers to as the cities, but could be thought of as the Kentucky Derby part of the state. Does anyone know how Obama did in the flat part of Kentucky? It would seem, given how poorly he did overall, that it would have to be badly. But he could have done even worse in the Appalachian part while splitting the cities. That would seem to be an interesting test of to what degree it it the Appalachian isolation that is Obama's problem.
Re: So he should be fine as long as there isn't, oh, a massive Republican effort to purge African-Americans from the voting lists or anything like that. But that won't happen. (Again.) But to do that the gOP has to have complete control of a state. Many swing states (e..g, Ohio, Pennsylvania) now have Democratic governors. And down in good-old florida Charlie Crist shows every sign og wanting a clean electiobn-- he even restored felon voting rights. The GOP's space for dirty tricks is a lot smaller than it was in 04 or 00.
$1.10 for a secondhand can of Manwich? Unconscionable!
Unless you're Tim K. If you're Tim K, the solution is to give in to the racists Fuck Tim K. That guy was proven to be a world class moron months ago. What an ass.
At this point I take this vitrole from Obama people as a badge of honour. Despite your best efforts at being at being angry, vindictive and irrational, I still want the almost certain nominee to win the general election. It's too bad we cannot have a frank discussion about how that can best be accomplished.
It is so obvious to me that Hillary will be making a comeback within the next 2-3 weeks. Part of winning elections is having the guts and testicular fortitude to stick it out in the face of daunting odds. The electorate that would not normally be predisposed to voting for her has been energized by her incredibly uplifting tone and glowing rhetoric. I foresee an cataclysmic even that will catapult Hillary to the top on the horizon. When this happens I'll be the first to stand and salute our new president.
Those canned goods seem mighty expensive. It sounds like Obama might do for a little Appalachia outreach with a strong policy platform of grocery distribution improvement. Walmart all the way!
Who would be childish enough to write a comment in my name (the 12:06 comment) and sound so foolish but it's pretty typical of the Obama moonies.
Just for facts' sake, Clinton didn't win a majority of the vote in Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Missouri in 1992. He got their electoral votes, but here were his popular vote percentages: KY: 44.7% Even in 1996, his only popular vote majority out of the 4 was in West Virginia, with 51.5%.
Pesto: So if you assume every Perot voter was a GOP voter that would make sense, but that's not correct. A more reasonable assumption is that between 60-70% of Perot voters were Republicans, in which case Clinton would have won a majority of popular vote in each state you list. The idea that Clinton only won the 1992 election because of Ross Perot is a Republican talking point.
In fact, if Ross Perot were running today I'd vote for him in a San Bernardino micro-second.
Tim K, The people born in the United States from November of 1974 to November of 1990, or who otherwise because voting citizens since the 1992 election, are not imaginary. Similarly, it is not a figment of anyone's imagination that large numbers of people, including many moderate independents and some Republicans, have become disaffected with the Republican Party since Bush took office. Indeed, not understanding that 2008 isn't 2000, let alone 1992, is part of why Clinton lost to Obama. And if you think Obama is going to adopt Clinton's mistake conceptions of American politics after he just proved she was wrong by beating her, you are going to be disappointed--again.
By the way, I agree that it is not at all clear that Clinton would have lost in 1992 if not for Perot. But I think the more interesting argument (here in 2008 with an election approaching) is that a Democrat today might be able to get a much larger share of Perot-type voters than Clinton would have gotten in 1992.
12:06 "Tim K." --- You funny. I think it is no surprise that these people will not vote for Obama bc of his race, and that there is absolutely nothing Obama can do to get them to change their minds, and that it should not significantly impact the race for president.
Tim, I never argued that Clinton won because of Perot, or that Clinton's numbers represented some kind of ceiling for him in those states. I simply wanted people to recognize that even Bill Clinton, running first against George Herbert Walker Bush, and then running as a very popular incumbent against Bob Dole, managed to win an actual majority in any of these states only once out of 8 tries. You yourself said, "these are people who haven't voted for a Democrat since the last time a Democrat won." In fact, the last time a Democrat won a large number of them seem to have voted against Clinton and for Perot. Which means some of them likely haven't voted for a Dem for over 30 years, if ever. That was 16 years ago and, in many ways, a world away -- as distant from us now as the Carter-Ford election was from them at that point. Hillary's primary success in these states doesn't come close to demonstrating that she'd win them in a general against McCain.
I think the "nobody's going to vote for a Black President" line and the "Sexism is the Last Acceptable Prejudice" line are in fundamental tension here. How can one believe simultaneously that one's favorite primary candidate is getting screwed out of her rightful shot at the nomination because a woman can't get a fair break, AND that she would get a fairer break in a general election?
I actually think Oakley Delong expresses what a ton of white folks actually believe. I've heard this sentiment too, i.e., the idea that Obama will put blacks in power over whites. I was shocked when I first heard it because it hadn't ever occurred to me as something that people would worry about. Perhaps Obama should carry around a chart w/ photos of his majority-white campaign staff.
dj moonbat, Indeed, and that is particularly hard to believe when the nomination in question is the Democratic Party's nomination. If sexism is a barrier to getting the nomination of a party with a relatively large number of female members (and similarly a relatively large number of feminist members), then it is going to be a far, far worse barrier to actually winning the general election. Fortunately, though, I think Clinton is completely wrong about this--I have no doubt that a woman could not only win the Democratic Party's nomination, but also the general election. Just not this particular person, Clinton, who happens to be a woman.
"Hillary Clinton and her supporters haven't wanted to acknowledge that their ranks have, to some extent, been swelled by racism...." Funny, Geraldine Ferraro thinks the Obama campaign is "sexist". Identity politics is a bitch, no?
Is that headline a typo? Or is Matt making an editorializing pun? The people in this report are rather appalling. Sad, appalling, and dare I say it...bitter.
Is that headline a typo? Or is Matt making an editorializing pun? The people in this report are rather appalling. Sad, appalling, and dare I say it...bitter.
In fact, if Ross Perot were running today I'd vote for him in a San Bernardino micro-second. Aren't you a Canadian?
…for all we know Obama's race will bring him more voters in the general election than it will lose him. Is that good enough for you? For all we knew, the Swift Boat Attacks would turn more people against Bush than against Clinton, but it didn't seem to work out that way. I'm very pro-Obama and I'm generally a pretty optimistic guy, but to just figure that everything is just going to work out seems a bit blinkered to me.
Does anyone know how Obama did in the flat part of Kentucky? It would seem, given how poorly he did overall, that it would have to be badly. But he could have done even worse in the Appalachian part while splitting the cities. Obama won Jefferson [Louisville] and Fayette [Lexington]. As to region, outside the cities Obama did poorly regardless of the part of the state. He also lost college graduates and postgraduates [So much for the beloved "ignorant hillbilly" explanation], and he lost in all age groups. All this, BTW, can be readily learned from CNN's web site.
…than against Kerry. I've been doing that again and again this week.
One problem is that Obama didn't campaign in West Virginia and Kentucky. Because he's running scared from Hillary's claim that he can't appeal to white blue collar workers. After he gets the nomination, he should campaign in this area with Jesse Jackson. Jesse knows his way around.
Tim K- I too think any grand attempt to rebuild an old Dem coalition is futile, be it Bill Clinton’s, JFK’s or FDR’s. But I have no real problem with the notion of trying to win over people in a piecemeal fashion who are right-leaning Democrats or left-leaning Republicans or however you want to classify the working class voters who voted for Bush and Reagan but voted for Clinton in ’92 or 2000. A few percentage points in the right state might make a difference But how does putting up Hillary Clinton, the senator from NY and the graduate of Wesleyan, (that’s a GOP talking point, not mine.), do any of this? Yes, she does better than Obama in some matrixes. Part of this is due to racism I’m sure, part is also due to a warm, happy feeling these voters have with the Clinton name due to the 1990’s economic boom. But this is only in the Democratic primaries; John McCain was not an option. If not, why didn’t the party establishment back Mark Warner or Evan Bayh or someone like that? Now this is a moot point, Obama’s going to get the Dem nod, it’s over. But go-ahead, go-ahead and create a narrative about the white, working class voter who would vote against POW American Hero John “Straight Talk Express” McCain if it was Hillary on the other ticket but not if it was Obama. I don’t think it’s plausible. I do not yet have that much scorn and disgust for my fellow Americans. Obama needs to win away disaffected GOP voters, independents and new voters of all persuasions; ages, income levels and education levels. Blue-collar deep-south Southerners are not the be-all and end-all of electoral victories. Give Obama Kerry’s states, then have him win states like Iowa, Virginia and Missouri and where are you?
"Aren't you a Canadian?"
Now you're really going to get it, Dr. Cooper!
If this guy is really willing to vote for universal healthcare, responsible environmental stewardship, an end to the Iraq disaster and economic justice for the poor and middle class if Hillary's the nominee, but against all that if Obama is the nominee, then he, rather than those radical blacks and other assorted elitist liberals he fears so much, is the author of his misery. Back in the day we used to call this "blaming the victim." But put yourself in his shoes; would you believe voting for some blogger's favorite candidate will bring "economic justice for the poor" if you were aware that that candidate's supporters hold you in contempt? Or would you believe that when they say "economic justice for the poor and middle class" they really mean "economic justice" for themselves, and in the end will let the poor hang? Or that when they misspell Appalachia as "Appallachia" it's a freudian slip? I frankly have been "appalled" myself at the outpouring of bile you good "progressives" seem to feel entitled to shower on one of the most put-upon populations in this country. If I were one of them, I'd watch my back around you too.
Raindog, My handle is a reference to the main character from the Who's Quadrophenia album, Jimmy Cooper (particularly the song Dr. Jimmy and Mr. Jim) I'm not actually a Dr., nor am I named Jim. I'm just a huge Who fan. This is why I use all lowercase. I try to issue corrections occasionally when somebody extrapolates out and calls me Dr.
Raindog: I have confidence Obama can win Iowa, but not Missouri. There's little evidence from the current polling that he would have an easy time winning that state. And considering Virginia hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee in 60 years I am more than a bit skeptical about hanging our electoral hopes on that one state. Colorado is a stronger, but difficult, possibility for him. Still, it doesn't leave him wih much margin for error. What Clinton buys Obama is a hearing from the kind of voters he needs to win states like Ohio and Missouri. It may even make him competitive in Florida. She may even be able to carry Arkansas for him narrowly. I don't think a reasonable chance at an additional 64 electoral votes he might not win right now is something to sneeze at.
I'm referred to as "Doctor" in Canada.
“Raindog,
I myself am not actually a dog. I got my handle from my favorite album from my favorite singer/songwriter, Raindogs by Tom Waits. A Raindog is a dog that left home and can’t find his way back because the rain washed away the scent trail. As a MA native who moved to the American Midwest, I thought it extra appropriate.
“What Clinton buys Obama is a hearing from the kind of voters he needs to win states like Ohio and Missouri. It may even make him competitive in Florida. She may even be able to carry Arkansas for him narrowly. I don't think a reasonable chance at an additional 64 electoral votes he might not win right now is something to sneeze at.
But exactly how does “Blue-State” Clinton, (I hate the terms too!) benefit Obama on the ticket more than Red State Sebelius or Purple State War Hero Webb? Obama doesn’t need Clinton in Missouri, he has Sen. McCaskill. And if Ohio is so important, why not pick Gov. Strickland as VP, who’s an ordained Minister to boot?
Yes, there is some concern floating around the airwaves, newspapers, rumors and gossip mills. The only reason why Clinton is seeing an increase in her campaign of voters is due, in part, to racism. You have openly heard top leaders such as Rendell say that whites in PA will not vote for a black man. And, Hillary did not reject/denounce statement. Hillary race baited because it was the only way to increase her votes. The democratic party is supposed to be a unifying party regardless of race, creed or color. But, you have one opponent in the name of Hill-Liar, going against Sen. Obama in a guttural way that's unbecoming to democrats. She will never be able to say he can't take the heat. In fact, it looks like she can't take the heat. Her talk, talk, talk and talk is wearing very thin. What the Clintons are doing is dividing the country, period. Instead of healing, moving forward. The Clintons are holding up this racism and anger and, of course, bitterness. We want a leader that can move on. It doesn't look like she can! Sen. Obama is the candidate that brings out the best in us - not the worse. Hillary and Bill thinks that they can strong-arm the country. Well, just let them try.
Raindog: Maybe he can win Virginia. All I'm saying is not to count on it. Montana has two Democratic senators and that doesn't mean Montana is a Democratic state in the electoral college. North Carolina has a Democratic governor and the same is true. State-wide races are very different, as you know, than a presidential race. Webb barely won his own race in Virginia, so how is he going to have coat-tails long enough to carry Obama through? Same with Claire McCaskill. She could barely even deliver the Democratic primary to Obama over Clinton. Clinton will have at least the same pull in Arkansas that any of the people you list have in their home states, and they don't have the same national following or strength in Florida or Ohio.
Shouldn't the real question be though is how many of those that voted for Hillary over Obama would actually vote for Hillary over McCain? Kentucky is 57% registered Democratic, but they voted for Bush over Kerry by 20 points and Bush over Gore, who not only was a regional neighbor, but arguably more hawkish and conservative than Hillary (at the time).
tomemos, I don't know what you mean by "good enough". The argument on the other side amounts to just this: "There exist some people who would vote for a white Democrat but won't vote for Obama because he is black." While this claim is undoubtedly true, it doesn't amount to anything close to a full-fledged electability argument, and that is the point I am making when I note that it is entirely possible Obama's race is a net positive. And I don't mean that in some abstract sense--from what I know of how various groups of people have reacted to him (including from before the presidential campaign), I really think it is possible that his race will be a net positive for him. But to be clear, I am not saying my reply amounts to a full-fledged electability argument either. The fact is we lack the data necessary to really determine whether his race will be a net positive or a net negative for the general election campaign. However, one thing which is pretty clear already from the available data is that it probably isn't such a large factor either way as to be determinative. In other words, he will likely win (or lose) on the basis of his other attributes, with his race having only a very minor effect.
"I have in-laws who honestly think that if Obama's elected, 'the blacks' are going to head out from the inner-cities to the exurbs to steal their trucks and lawn tractors." How do they think this is going to happen? Do they think Congress doesn't exist or something? I'm sorry, and this might be elitist, but at some point you really have to wonder if your beliefs show you to be stupid.
what the one non-Appalachian women in the story refers to as the cities, but could be thought of as the Kentucky Derby part of the state. What they mean is 'Louisville', which may be Churchill Downs and mint juleps, but is also Muhammad Ali Boulevard, 35% African-American.
Gore in part lost Florida because he lost the Cuban vote there (which Bill won in 1996) because of his associations with Bill, who had become persona non grata among Florida's Cubans post-Elian. The fact that this primary has been limited mostly to Democrats obscures the fact that Clinton's negatives are rather high. Clinton can possibly help on the margins with several demographics, but she can't really help a lot with any of them outside of working class white women in Appalachia who aren't going to vote for Obama unless he picks Clinton as VP over anyone else (which isn't exactly the biggest demo) while also turning off independents, hurting his narrative and message, hurting him out west, having to spend extra time on the trail having to spin whatever Bill does that's embarrassing while also being the only thing left that can drive up GOP turnout because they really want to vote against HRC in some form. Picks like Strickland, Zinni, etc. could help to reinforce Obama's message and target Appalachia at the same time.
Part of winning elections is having the guts and testicular fortitude to stick it out in the face of daunting odds. Well she's screwed then.
Back in the day we used to call this "blaming the victim." But put yourself in his shoes; would you believe voting for some blogger's favorite candidate will bring "economic justice for the poor" if you were aware that that candidate's supporters hold you in contempt? Or would you believe that when they say "economic justice for the poor and middle class" they really mean "economic justice" for themselves, and in the end will let the poor hang? Or that when they misspell Appalachia as "Appallachia" it's a freudian slip? I frankly have been "appalled" myself at the outpouring of bile you good "progressives" seem to feel entitled to shower on one of the most put-upon populations in this country. If I were one of them, I'd watch my back around you too. You have the causation backwards here. People are reacting to the man's own words. It isn't plausible to use the reactions of people he's never met as a justification for the positions he holds. If you'd like to defend the words of the Appalachians featured in this short then go right ahead.
After he gets the nomination, he should campaign in this area with Jesse Jackson. Jesse knows his way around. Heck, he should campaign in the foothills of NW Alabama with Charles Barkley, who has talked about divide-and-conquer racial politics to separate black poor from white poor.
at some point you really have to wonder if your beliefs show you to be stupid. Another example of high-minded debate from Reality Man. Picking Anthony Zinni would be very unwise considering he's a loose cannon who lacks the political experience to avoid gaffes and perform during the VP debate. With Clinton you have a candidate who performed almost flawlessly during a score of debates, and rarely made a gaffe during the entire 18 month campaign to date.
Webb barely won his own race in Virginia, so how is he going to have coat-tails long enough to carry Obama through? Same with Claire McCaskill. You are aware that both Webb and McCaskill defeated incumbent senators, right? That's kind of difficult.
Tim K: "I still want the almost certain nominee to win the general election." That would be McCain, since nobody is going to gut him on the "war hero" crap, and the Iran war will give him a bounce neither Obama or Clinton would be able to deal with since both are hawks on Iran. "With Clinton you have a candidate who performed almost flawlessly during a score of debates, and rarely made a gaffe during the entire 18 month campaign to date." BWahahahahahahahah!!! You gotta laugh!
Amazing, Matt. Lauds Al Jazeera for it's "deep" story. I wonder if he feels the same way when AJ reports on "martyrdom missions" (suicide bombings) in Iraq and Israel. Just sayin'.
Richard Steven Hack: I'm serious. In terms of her personal performance, she made so few misstatements and screwed up so few answers I can literally think of just about every one, even the minor ones. - Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants And that's pretty damn good for a year and a half. She has been judged as winning nearly all of the many debates and displaying a mastery of policy issues. She certainly never made statements as impolitic as Obama has: -unconditional meetings with rogue leaders Any one of which dwarfs all of her relatively minor gaffes. Clinton's defeat can be owed to two things, neither of which relate to her personal performance during the campaign: -her baggage from past scandals If it weren't for either one of those she would be the presumptive nominee today.
If it weren't for either one of those she would be the presumptive nominee today. Possibly, but that's precisely why in the minds of many voters she doesn't have a legitimate claim to the nomination. She knew how to play, she'd done it before during Bill's elections, she had all the party machinery in place and it was well funded and the media was even with her in the very beginning and she still failed to secure the majority of delegates.
I wonder if he feels the same way when AJ reports on "martyrdom missions" (suicide bombings) in Iraq and Israel. AJ style sheet uses "suicide bombing" as an editorial guideline. This is extremely controvertial in Muslim circles because to a religious Muslim you just made a value judgement and consigned the attacker to hell. Guests say whatever they want to just like everywhere else.
Jim Webb (who wrote a book about the Appalachia) Scotch-Irish) made a good point yesterday to Olbermann. The Democrats not only don't understand these people - they don't know they exist. They were pushed to the margins of society by ever-widening numbers of couch potato Americans and retreated to the hills. They don't care about money, gadgets, or "American Idol". They founded this goddamn country and they're decent, generous, salt-of-the-earth, hard-working motherfuckers. Our media and and blogs like this have piegeon-holed them as drunken, toothless, racist, hillbilly deviants. That's why Obama needs to pick Jim Webb most of all.
Tim K, Trust me, we get that you are still a true believer in all things Clinton. But again, you are just setting yourself up for disappointment if you think that after winning the nomination contest, Obama is going to suddenly start believing that Clinton's political style is a winning approach.
DTM: And you aren't a "true believer" in Obama? It's silly to try to portray my support as somehow irrational and your support as high-minded. Of course I realize it is still a very impressive accomplishment to take a state senator from Illinois and have him beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in less than 4 years. Why the Clinton campaign was so ill-prepared on the ground in the caucuses I will never know, but what is done is done. Yes, Obama has won the nominating contest by the narrowest margin in modern history. The popular vote is a virtual tie. This is a time for humility on Obama's part, not triumphalism. Just as it would be if it were Clinton who were winning by the narrowest of margins. Also, if you take the segment of the campaign from after Wisconsin until now Clinton has kicked Obama's ass. True, it has been too little, too late. But yes Obama does have a thing or two to learn from Clinton, and if he wants to win the election he should be paying attention and reaching out. I know you may not be wise enough to realize this, but I'm hoping Obama is.
"They don't care about money, gadgets, or "American Idol"." They do care about money, just live an impoverished swath of the country so don't have much. If they did have money, they'd buy gadgets. They ARE American Idol's demographic.
These "decent, generous, salt-of-the-earth, hard-working motherfuckers" would hang Obama from a tree if they caught him out alone after dark. And they didn't found this country alone, dammit, so stop selling that bullshit. "Decent, generous, salt-of-the-earth, hard-working motherfuckers" don't come in white, only. They are drunken, toothless, racist, hillbilly deviants, the camera doesn't lie, and btw, you left out "ignorant", and omitted the entire towns addicted to oxycontin, as well. Spare me the sympathy for them and their ignorant, racist ways. We don't need them, we can win without them, and afterwards we'll still help their ignorant toothless asses, anyway.
If these Scots-Irish "scum" as you call them were just limited to Kentucky or West Virginia - it'd be one thing. But, there in Arkansas, Missouri, Florida, Tennessee, and south-west Virginia as well. They're hurting in the pocket and they're no more likely to "lynch" Obama than frat boys from Lehigh. From going to school in TallahasseI know exactly what Jim Webb was talking about in his book. These people would give you the shirt off their back. They have rock sized holes in their showers that open up to the outside. They can't afford medical care. They 'be been easy prey for Republicans because at least Republicans know they exist and have known how to exploit their fears and insecurities. But, it doesn't have to fucking be that way. You can talk to these people. They want to know that you respect their hard-working, non-materialistic ways. It's worth the effort given all the swing State turnaround it could have.
Trevor-- Are you a minority? Are you Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American? If not, how the hell do you know what these people are likely to do to a man of color out alone after dark, in their hills? Did you look at the clip? Obama did try to talk to them, but they're so convinced he's a Muslim terrorist, so racist that they can't stomach even the idea of a Black man as president, and so frightened of what--to them--would be a just retribution, that they didn't listen to him. They might give *you* the shirt off their back, but as for Obama, they'd only spare him a length of rope. The Rude Pundit has it right: "...the reason Clinton blew Obama out of the blue grass in the Kentucky primary is because racist crackers hate black people." Did you notice that the states you listed were all part of the Confederacy? Again, did you even listen to the clip? They've got generations of being taught "well, at least you ain't a nigger!" to overcome, before they realize that they have common social and economic concerns with minorities in this country. They've been easy prey for the Republicans because they voted their fears, not their self-interest, and that's not going to change without education and time. And that's not possible before November.
I wouldn't trust those frat boys at Lehigh, either.
Tim K, her campaign lost because she said the wrong things and did the wrong things. You just don't realize that statements like talking about pre-emptively nuking Pakistan and so on were misstatements because you agreed with them. In addition, Obama would have to waste time explaining away anything that comes out of Bill's self-sabotaging mouth if he picked HRC as his VP. I don't know what happened to Bill's political skills, but they seem to have disappeared this year. Picking someone unpopular to be VP just is a bad idea. Also, guess what, racists deserve to be mocked because racism is fundamentally stupid. If racists don't like it, tough. I've dealt with enough racism in my life that I don't give a fuck what they think, but just enjoy making fun of them. You seem to think there is something honorable in being stupid and racist.
Did you notice that the states you listed were all part of the Confederacy? Actually, that's a misrepresentation. WV seceded from Virginia over slavery. Eastern TN and western NC fought on the Union side (you find relatively little Dixie flag shit in western NC -- it only shows up when you head down into the foothills east or down into SC). The upcountry wasn't ruled by King Cotton (or King Tobacco): slavery was present, but in a different form from the stereotypical plantation. The relationship of Appalachia and race is a very complex one; African-Americans have been true outsiders there -- just beyond the horizon or over the mountain. Anyway, like I said upthread, if it's possible to win the general election without rewarding people for their stupid views, then full steam ahead. Obama should take the opportunity to engage people who live in the upcountry -- a bit of Wendell Berry might be good to add to the reading list -- but for those too sphincter-tightened from the prospect of a black president, fuck 'em.
Well, that reporter looked pretty dark - Arab I imagine, and somehow he escaped from hillbilly territory alive.
Tim K, Oh, I admit my belief Obama would make a good President is largely subjective. The difference between us is that I, unlike you, live in the real world. For example, in the real world, Clinton actually did try very hard to win in a lot of caucuses, starting with Iowa. She just got beat. But in Tim K's imaginary world, she only got beat in caucuses because she inexplicably didn't try. Similarly, in the real world, since Wisconsin Obama has gotten more delegates than Clinton in Texas, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oregon ... making him 6-6-1 in that stretch (Guam being the tie). And in the real world, the states up to and including Wisconsin actually do count. But in Tim K's imaginary world, Clinton "has kicked Obama's ass." Anyway, I think neither excessive humility nor triumphalism are appropriate for Obama at this point. Rather, I think he can be confident in his approach to politics after having beaten Clinton's style of politics, given all her initial advantages, while understanding that beating McCain will present new challenges.
Glad to see that a network from the most racist and intolerant region on the planet, where there is modern slavery and where apostasy might get you the death penalty, is doing a special on what some ignorant hicks think in a country that is about to elect a black president with a Muslim name. When a black man is running for president of Qatar, I look forward to a report from the Quatarian backwoods.
Comments closed June 05, 2008. |
Obama loses votes due to racism for sure. But to argue that that is a reason not to nominate him for that reason is fundametnally incompatible with Democratic party values. It is unacceptable.
Posted by Hugh | May 22, 2008 10:42 AM