Daily Kos

'Racial undercurrent' - Hillary can't afford to alienate any more voters

Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 02:30:38 AM PDT

A piece in Sunday's Washington Post confirms what many people here have been discussing over the last month as Obama has crept up in the polls:

Racial Undercurrent Is Seen in Clinton Campaign

It has unfolded mostly under the radar. But an important development in the 2008 Democratic battle may be the building backlash among African Americans over comments from associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that could be construed as jabs at Sen. Barack Obama's race.

These officials, including Clinton aides and prominent surrogates, have raised questions or dropped references about Obama's position on sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder cocaine offenses; on his handgun control record; and on his admitted use of drugs as a youth. The context was always Obama's "electability." But the Illinois senator's campaign advisers said some African American leaders detect a pattern, and they believe it could erode Clinton's strong base of black support.

(more)

As the air has continued to gush out of the "inevitability" balloon, Clinton's steadily strong negatives among the general electorate and independent "swing voters," in particular, make her the weakest of the top three Dems in general election match-ups.

Saturday's Rasmussen Reports cover story (linked above) is headlined:

Clinton and Romney Have Highest Level of Core Opposition Among Leading Candidates

And in Clinton's case, her negatives dwarf those of the other leading Democrats and even of most of the Republicans, except for Romney, among the general electorate:

Among the leading Presidential candidates, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney have the highest level of core opposition among voters. Forty-seven percent (47%) say they will vote against each of these candidates no matter who else is on the ballot.

In between, 42% will definitely vote against Giuliani, 38% against Edwards, 36% against Obama, 34% against Huckabee, 34% against Thompson.

...

Thirty percent (30%) will definitely vote for her and 29% will definitely vote for Obama. Edwards and Giuliani have core support from 23%, McCain from 22%, Thompson and Huckabee from 21%, and Romney from 19%.

On a net basis (core support minus core opposition), Obama (-7) and McCain (-11) come out on top. Giuliani (-19) and Romney (-28) have the weakest numbers on a net basis.

But, perhaps more ominously, Clinton's negatives among independents were even higher:

Results among voters not affiliated with either major party show that 48% would definitely vote against Clinton. That’s the highest level of core opposition among unaffiliated voters encountered by any of the candidates in the survey. Giuliani is close—44% of unaffiliated voters would definitely vote against him.

...

On a net basis, McCain (-6) and Obama (-11) have the best numbers among unaffiliated voters. Clinton (-26) and Romney (-20) have the weakest showing among this group.

The philosophy behind Clinton's DLC "centrism" focuses on capturing "the vital center" -- those swing voters who may go Republican or Democratic and can make or break a close election.

Well, by all indications, Hillary is failing miserably in that regard.

Clinton's problems are compounded by the fact that she is a known quantity. Her negative numbers have been stable for months, if not years. How many of these "I-definitely-will-NOT-vote-for-Hillary" folks is she likely to convert? She has to fight like hell just to make sure that she can keep all the rest or she gets pummeled (unless Romney is nominated, in which case, it's a toss-up).

So can she really afford to alienate African-American voters with her campaign's "We-didn't-know" attacks on Obama? Gee, remember when Bill Clinton was the "first black President?"

"Inevitable?"

"Most electable?"

Neither appear to be true. We'll know better in a few weeks, but the Clinton campaign's recent announcement that it will "embrace" the 1990s in these closing days makes me wonder if Hillary may reprise Bill's chosen campaign song of 1992.

Back then, the forward-looking anthem was Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow." Perhaps Mick and the gang would recut it for her under a new title, "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Yesterday."

The "change agent" looks back in fondness. And Bill basks in the reflected glow. All of this nostalgia reminds of the typical Republican campaign nostalgia for the good ol' days when the coloreds knew their place. [NOTE: The Clinton campaign had no prior knowledge I was going to write that line. I am resigning, effective immediately, from Hillary for President.]

Good luck in the caucus and primaries, everyone!

Tags: Hillary Clinton, African American, Barack Obama, polls, 2008 elections, president, Recommended (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 553 comments

  •  Another thing to add (53+ / 0-)

    Obama, of course, is way more electable than Hillary -- all the data proves that.

    Also, when Bill Clinton was on Charlie Rose, take note of how he said that Obama couldn't help but be a symbol "by his very nature"; but that Hillary had substance (he added that she was a symbol too because she was a woman).

    Also, he had this weird segue into aids work in africa and a discussion of indonesia when he was listing the three reasons why he thought hillary was better than obama (he compared obama to kyoto signatories who won't meet their emissions targets).

    Very strange.

    The Jed Report | Barack Obama for President

    by JedReport on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 02:38:32 AM PDT

    •  Suggests, not prooves (8+ / 0-)

      "way more electable than Hillary -- all the data proves that."---watch out for absolutist statements like this.  The very imperfect numbers we have suggest this may be true, however the numbers we have are drawn from somewhat dodgy polls and surveys.  Logical imprecision.  Taking this to its logical extreme, if what you say is true there's no more need for candidate diaries, or indeed anyone to do anything, it's in the bag.

    •  he also said people voting for Obama were'rolling (37+ / 0-)

      the dice' as if Obama hasn't proven he's an honest, good man, his work in the state senate, his work with organizing poor people, something else he has always had high grades with...

      To take the ominous tone when describing Obama, the 'scary... unkowable... risky candidate.  It made me sick.  Obama has been looked into as much as any candidate and the fact that his an honorable man is a known fact.

      the clintons have sunk very low and I asked this blog weeks ago just 'how long will the blacks who supported Hillary early on' put up with this low, rovesque style dirty work.

      i hope obama kicks her butt.

      Confucius say: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.

      by bluecayuga on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:36:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just a little suggestion Bob (5+ / 0-)

      Day after day after day now, you have diaries up attacking Hillary, saying she is this or that. Have you ever considered maybe writing a few more POSITIV E diaries about your candidate?
      I am an Edwards supporter but to me Obama has a few HUGE strikes against him: Failed to support Ned Lamont, championed Donnie McClurkin, who says I am evil and don't have a right to exist. I also have concerns about his experience and his ability to fight the right-wing machine.

      But the way for me and other people to change my minds is not: He is not Hillary, he is not as bad as Hillary. Frankly, the more anti-Hillary diaries I see from Obama supporters, the LESS inclined I feel to support Obama if Edwards loses because all I seem to be getting from many people (not all, see Populista's excellent diaries and others) is that Obama is NOT Hillary.
      Bob can you tell me in a few more ideas or ten why I should LIKE Obama, not why I should dislike Hillary?

      •  Tolerance is a two-way street (9+ / 0-)

        I am an Edwards supporter but to me Obama has a few HUGE strikes against him: Failed to support Ned Lamont, championed Donnie McClurkin, who says I am evil and don't have a right to exist.

        I'm getting a little sick and tired of these attempts to make Donnie McClurkin the poster boy for homophobia. Yes homophobia is a huge problem in the African American community.  Anytime you have a community that has been historically oppressed and denied access to education, you're going to find ignorant and even bigoted attitudes, as discriminiation is what they've been taught.  Obama has publicly stated he disagrees with McClurkin, but you seem to want to him to ridicule the man for his ignorance. You actually remind of the right-wingers who constantly attack muslims for the sexism that exists in their community, failing to see the big picture, that some Muslim men marginalize women because they themselves have been marginalized.

        •  Let me tell you what I'm sick of.. (10+ / 0-)

          People who are black or straight saying it is not a big deal. If you are not gay, you have no idea how significant it is.
          Obama chose to have that hater at his show. All the time he has pretty speeches about respect for GLBT folks but when the time came to just act, he did not. Same with Ned Lamont. They begged him and pleaded him to go, he literally passed through Connecticut  the day after a book signing in Connecticut to go to a rally for Patrick, ahead by 20 points. His support would have meant a lot but he refused.

          Frankly, I see your larger argument as kind of lame: Abuse and hatred are not warranted no matter what: Is it occur for a black man to hit a black woman with the excuse that the black man is oppressed? Hell no, because a) it is still abuse and b) the black woman is oppressed even more. The argument of "I'm oppressed so I get to oppress someone else, lower on the foodchain, just does not cut it"
          And we are talking about Obama here, someone who talked about a vision for the future. That means you educate through a positive message, not feed people's hate.

          To be blunt, I don't give a flying fuck if people who are African American or straight say the McClurkin thing was no big deal. To the gay community it IS a big deal and our votes are as big as the Jewish voting block. Perhaps this is a good time to mention this in a thread about "not alienating voters"

          •  if i could rec this 100000 times i would. n/t (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            BoiseBlue

            _______________

            it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

            -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

            by dadanation on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:13:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ditto (3+ / 0-)

              Much like telling African Americans how they should feel about the Shaheen statement. That is ignorance.  Do not tell queers how they should feel about the McClurkin thing. There are far too many Americans who think that being gay is a choice and something that can be cured.  For a candidate who is running on "hope," that didn't offer a lot of hope to the LGBT community. And if you are not gay, please do not tell me when I should be offended and when I should not be.

              The Shaheen thing stung a lot of African Americans, and the McClurkin thing stung a lot of LGBT Americans. Both were terrible examples of taking advantage of bigotry in the US.

              The vote is "Basic Democracy #1". YOU must preserve it. -edscan

              by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:32:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  reply (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                kpardue, concerned, Akonitum

                The Shaheen thing stung a lot of African Americans, and the McClurkin thing stung a lot of LGBT Americans.

                But the difference is, Shaheen is part of the cultural elite and knows better, McClurkin doesn't.  Shaheen's comments appeared to be from a place of malice, while I see McClurkin's comments were from a place of ignorance.  Homophobia is widespread among the African American community; it's part of the legacy of slavery where a people were kept ignorant and denied their manhood.

                •  As an "ex-gay" (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  jxg, Montague

                  I think he damn well does know better.

                  And anyway, I don't give a shit about McClurkin anymore than I give a shit about any other queer who suffers from internalized homophobia. What I do give a shit about is Obama giving this man a voice.

                  Besides, your argument is self-defeating. It is well known that African Americans tend to be more homophobic, which means that Obama used that ignorance for political gain.  That's not right.

                  And why are insulting racial comments done with "malice" and homophobic comments made out of "ignorance?"

                  The vote is "Basic Democracy #1". YOU must preserve it. -edscan

                  by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:58:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't think he does (4+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Chi, kpardue, concerned, El Yoss

                    I think that one of the reasons homosexuality is such a stigma in the black community is because African American men had their man-hood destroyed through slavery, and many are trying to overcompensate so we see alot of sexist and homophobic lyrics in rap music.  But I don't think we should be trying to pit one oppressed group (blacks) against another oppressed group (gays).  I think that's why republicans have been so successful. They played this game of pitting working class poor whites against blacks, and rich whites were the ones who benefit.

                    Besides, your argument is self-defeating. It is well known that African Americans tend to be more homophobic, which means that Obama used that ignorance for political gain.  That's not right.

                    I don't see it that way. I think Obama is intelligent enough to realize that one of the reasons he's so liberal is that he was lucky enough to have a Harvard education, so I think he's sympathetic to people who are less educated than him and he knows he can't reach them by shutting them out. He's even said that he has sympathy towards whites who don't like black people.  It just seems to be like punishing the ignorant is blaming the victim, when what we should be doing is educating them.

                    And why are insulting racial comments done with "malice" and homophobic comments made out of "ignorance?"

                    Because I've studied homophobia in the African American community, and I know it comes from a place of ignorance, and a desire to reclaim manhood lost during slavery.  The racist comments however were made by a savvy political player who is part of the cultural elite.

                  •  "It is well known that African Americans tend to (5+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    jxg, dadanation, Montague, BoiseBlue, Number5

                    more homophobic"  "Homophobia is widespread among the African American community; it's part of the legacy of slavery where a people were kept ignorant and denied their manhood."--Is it just me or do these comments reflect stereotyping and patronizing attitude?

                    I am a college teacher in a Southern town where about 20% of my students are black.  Based on my own experience, I wouldn't say that blacks are more homophobic, certainly not at this age demographic anyway.  

                    Can't we just stop with all this pigeonholing and categorical nonsense...

                    The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya

                    by MadScientist on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:55:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  good point. (0+ / 0-)

                      the data are inconclusive actually as to whether or not, and which segments of the black community for that matter, are more or less homophobic than their white counterparts.

                      _______________

                      it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                      -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                      by dadanation on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:48:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Um excuse me (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  dadanation, BoiseBlue

                  Obama knew better. There are hundreds of strong, positive African Americans he could have asked to the event, instead he picked McClurkin, making the gap between the African American community and the gay Community even greater. Not exactly a vision for the future

                  •  Okay. We've been over this ad nauseum (6+ / 0-)

                    McClurkin was one performer in a gospel tour organized to support Obama. It was a huge screwup by the campaign to have him on the ticket in the first place. Once he was on, they chose not to remove him. He and the campaign would have been crucified whichever decision had been made at that point.

                    Obama has publicly and repeatedly stated his disagreements with McClurkin and others like him on homosexuality.

                    People can chose to hold this campaign blunder (and it was a whopper, I'll grant you) against Obama for ever. That's fine. Just please don't keep misrepresenting what happened.

                    I trust Barack Obama.

                    by casperr on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 02:21:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  reply (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            kpardue

            Is it occur for a black man to hit a black woman with the excuse that the black man is oppressed?

            Of course it's not okay for black men to hit black women, but do I understand why they do it? Of course I do. When you've been oppressed and dehumanized for all of human history, had your manhood ripped away, and denied an equal education, of course you are going to pick on anyone you can to make yourself feel better. It's sick, it's reprehensible, but I understand it, and it's that understanding that distinguished authentic progressive from the rabid right-wingers who hate the Arab world because their attitudes towards woman are not as evolved as ours. I just don't think we're ever going to make progress unless we're able to empathize even with the least sympathetic of characters.  

            •  What crap! (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              jxg, BoiseBlue

              "When you've been oppressed and dehumanized for all of human history, had your manhood ripped away, and denied an equal education, of course you are going to pick on anyone you can to make yourself feel better."

              Nobody has been oppressed and dehumanized for all of human history.  Everybody has only one history, their own individual history.  Lots of people are denied and equal education for lots of reasons--geography, economics, and yes, race.  But that makes you clobber women?  Give me a fucking break.

              The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya

              by MadScientist on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:59:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  All the more reason why (0+ / 0-)

              I was profoundly disappointed in Obama. He  had the opportunity to instruct, to break down these issue of bigotry but instead he chose to exploit the hatred for a few more votes. I have numerous issues with Oprah but that was an example of using someone with a POSITIVE message and a respected member of the African American community to get voter response. The first was just stirring up hatred.

              •  he's no saint (0+ / 0-)

                He's a politician with a collection of dog whistles that he hopes gets him to 50% plus 1.

                But what the Clinton campaign has done to him is not right.  To have Bill Clinton go on TV and all but call him an Uppity Negro Who Doesn't Know His Place, is a travesty.

                I still hope Edwards wins.

                Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

                by jimsaco on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 02:35:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I'm getting tired of all this manhood crap (0+ / 0-)

              Hillary for president.  At least we won't have to hear about manhood for a few years.

          •  Double ditto's... (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            gladkov, BoiseBlue

            I was a Barack Obama supporter (and, to be honest he is still my favored candidate) The Rev. McClurkin thing was absolutely vile, particularly with his objections to how Bill Shaheen was handled.

            Let me be absolutely clear here. Saying to an LGBT person that "God has delivered me from this and (s)he can do that for you too." is just as bad (even worse since we are voters and private citizens, rather than candidates) as what Mr. Shaheen said about Barack Obama. To the LGBT community, it is close to being on par with what Trent Lott said at Strom Thurmond's b-day party.

            Bigotry is the disease of ignorance...Education & free discussion are the antidotes of both. Thomas Jefferson

            by RiverCityMadman on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:46:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What about all the sexism & homophobia in the (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Chi, kpardue

              Arab world?  Do you support the Bush administration policy of being tough on countries with ignorant attitudes?  Should the president of the U.S. never negotiate with the leader of Iran because he's  homophobic? Don't you see that when taken to extremes, your progressive values achieve their own negation?  I've always been taught that part of being a true progressive is forgiving conservatism when it comes from a place of ignorance.

              •  That is not the point. (4+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                jxg, gladkov, Arturo52, BoiseBlue

                First, we hold our leaders to a higher standard. Bringing the sexism and homophobia that is in the Arab world into the argument is a distraction.

                Rev. McClurkin was not the leader of a foreign country with whom Barack Obama was negotiating a treaty. He was a headliner in a campaign event.

                The essence here is I do NOT forgive conservatism when it comes from ignorance, I try to educate as to why that ignorance is not valid. When you include the idea the Rev. McClurkin was ignorant, well that's not valid either. He was an active homosexual, and is no longer, so his homophobia is less ignorance and is either self hate, or blatant pandering for his congregation and following. Ignorance would be someone in the middle of nowhere, having had no exposure, being suspicious or yes even hateful of the LGBT community.

                Neither of which is sufficient to address my concerns on why Barack Obama didn't say "No thank you" to someone preaching this nonsense.

                Bigotry is the disease of ignorance...Education & free discussion are the antidotes of both. Thomas Jefferson

                by RiverCityMadman on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:20:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  To me it is the point (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  kpardue

                  First, we hold our leaders to a higher standard. Bringing the sexism and homophobia that is in the Arab world into the argument is a distraction.

                  But the point is Rev. McClurkin represents a large part of African-American culture that Obama can choose to either ignore or to try to educate. He's campaigning exactly the way he said he would govern.  If Obama said he is willing to work with sexist and homophobic leaders of oppressed parts of the Arab world, why shouldn't his campaign work with homophobic leaders from opressed parts of American culture. To me it speaks to his whole philosophy which is one of cooperation, harmonious relations, co-existence, and compromise.  I believe Obama is someone who can bring the country together, and ultimately the world together. The lesson from history and the lesson from the war is that in your face confrontation doesn't work in the long run.  That's not how we'll build a better world.

                  •  By the same logic... (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    jxg, BoiseBlue

                    if the Clinton or Edwards campaign brought a member of the Klan or the American Nazi Party onboard, it would be justified by them trying to reach out and educate a specific segment of Caucasian-American culture. You would find that acceptable?
                    This community would be screaming just as loudly about that being a vile thing to do.

                    Bigotry is the disease of ignorance...Education & free discussion are the antidotes of both. Thomas Jefferson

                    by RiverCityMadman on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:42:21 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                      Given that she is running against an African American, I would be very suspicous if she brought out a Klan member, however I think Bill Clinton probably could have gotten away with it in 96.  If he had simply made the point that republicans have been pitting poor whites against blacks for too long and it's high time democrats started reaching out to marginalized whites, I think a lot of people would have supported him meeting with Klan members (of course a huge backlash would have ensued also).  But I'm much less offended by some uneducated white man wearing a white sheet or the homophobia of some ignorant self-hating black evangelical than I am of the subtle race card being played by sophisticated political operatives. To me the latter is much more sinister because it's done by smart educated people who know what they are doing is wrong, but do it anyway.

                  •  That is the vilest bunch of horseshit (3+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    jxg, Arturo52, BoiseBlue

                    A lot of people are bigots in a certain way so we should play into that. So in 1900, the majority thought blacks and women should not be treated like equal citizens. Does that make it right? No, it doesn't. A great leader is one who breaks DOWN these stereotypes and forms of biggotry, not one who builds on them for votes. I don't care if 99.9% of African Americans are homophobic (obviously not the case by a long, long, long shot), one oppressed group hating another oppressed group is just plain WRONG. I expected Obama to show the vision to see that.

          •  Is it occur for a black man to hit a black woman (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            cdreid, cville townie, BoiseBlue

            You are not trying to insinuate that hitting (or hitting the opposite sex) is an exclusive trait of the black community, are?

            I ask because I can't find the relevance of that question to the discussion. Perhaps you could try another example to bolster your argument. This one is, shall we say, incongruous.

          •  I agree with no one in this exchange (9+ / 0-)

            What's emerging is a picture of the African American community depicting us as somehow ignorant/stupid/pathological.  It's nonsense.

            IMO, the slightly higher incidence of homophobia in the black community is due to higher percentages of evangelical Christians.  Strict adherence to a gospel which views homosexuality as a sin, or product of a demon, will of course produce homophobia.  I looked up stats illustrating what college students, by race, think of gay marriage.  The national average was something like 60% support full marriage rights.  The black average was 50%.  Hmm, is this disparity so large that it justifies the smearing of a racial group?

            What is telling is the constant focus on the African American community with regards to the subject of homophobia.  How much do we hear about other discrete groups and homophobia?

            Hispanics? Silence.
            Asians? Crickets chirping.
            Irish/Polish/Russian/anyotherfuckingnationalityotherthanBlack?  Not a damn word!

            Right on this site, we had blackface pictures and slave vernacular in a diary attacking Obama; I've had people tell me to get the racial chip off of my shoulder; I've had someone tell me point blank, that they hold blacks to a different standard.

            What I think greenboy has picked up on is that much of the McClurkin dustup was unfair.  Not unfounded, but highly unfair.

            •  You are not gay right? (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              BoiseBlue

              You are not one to say whether it was unfair or not. That is what makes me so angry: If you are African American, you can say that the Shaheen thing was disgusting (which it was) and that if you are not African American you don't get a full picture of the situation. But if its the gay community, the same rules don't seem to apply.

              I do care what the causes are, evangelical or not. Hate is wrong, period. Obama cannot solve all of the social ills but he does not need to stoke the fires either. That is what he chose to do by having that hater come to his event.

              •  I don't have to be gay (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                greenboy

                Re-read my comment.  I said the McClurkin dustup was unfair, but it wasn't unfounded.

                Sometimes how someone reacts to offensiveness says more about themselves than the offensive incident.  You won't find a comment of mine stating that gays [of all races] have no right to find McClurkin offensive.  But you will see plenty of comments challenging those who used the incident to spread hatred of the black community.

                •  Um no.. (0+ / 0-)

                  It was wrong for Obama to have McClurkin. To me, it tells me something negative about him and his choices.

                  There are some members of the black community who are homophobic. That is wrong any way you slice it.

                  The hatred that is being spread when Obama chose to have that man come to his event when it was not necessary to do so.

                  I am not spreading any hatred of the African American community. I am saying those who are homophobic are a) wrong b) hypocrites.  That is all.

              •  I am gay (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                brklyngrl, greenboy

                and I'm white too, not that it matters, and I don't think the McClurkin affair was such a huge deal, given that Obama has progressive positions on gay rights in his platform and has not and will not back off from those. Yes, Donnie's a bigot; yes, Obama made a mistake, or his staff did, that he couldn't back off from.

                The point of having McClurkin do the concert was not to attack gays, even though Donnie did run his mouth off. It was to reach out to a demographic that is very important to Obama in the primaries, and to Democrats in the general election, that is very hard to reach any other way. There were certainly better role models, and someone should have checked his background a little better, but at some point you have to take what you've got.

                John McCain: Untested, untried, unreasonable, and unpresidential. Thank you General Clark!

                by cville townie on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 01:01:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Don't give a rat's ass (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  cdreid, Arturo52

                  whether you think it is a big deal or not. Sorry to be so blunt about it but the point that many African American members of the community were right in saying you have to walk in their shoes to say whether something was a big deal or not.
                  There are a lot of people in the gay community who are pissed off and whose votes presumably matter and who supposedly are counted in Obama's vision for the future

                  Having McClurkin at the concert is 100% the same thing as Hillary having a clan member at a concert. It is not acceptable to have a hater at an event when it is KNOWN that that person has caused so much division and resentment. It was absolutely not necessary to have him there. And people can give 1,000 speeches, I want to see concrete action. By making that choice, it rolled back all of the positive speeches that had been made.
                  Do I think he is homophobic? Absolutely not! Do I think he will make some really bad decisions because it would be politically inconvenient to stand up for what is right? That is my question. Being a gay man from Connecticut, I feel he had the ability to stand up on 2 important issues and did not. That is the issue.

            •  I admit I did not word that correctly (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              GN1927, brklyngrl

              There tends to be more, and as you pointed out, that is more an issue of religion than of race. However, the myth that homosexuality can be "cured" is a very frustrating one and probably the most damaging of all myths out there.

              I don't think the McClurkin "dust up" was unfair or unjust. I think Obama needs to answer to that. I also thought it was just as insulting to African Americans as it was to queers. Do I think Obama is homophobic? Absolutely not. Do I think he used poor judgement? Absolutely. And I think the LGBT community deserves an apology for that.

              The vote is "Basic Democracy #1". YOU must preserve it. -edscan

              by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 12:16:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  When I say dust-up (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                taylormattd, brklyngrl

                I'm referring more to the reaction, some of which was virulently racist, to McClurkin.  That said, your concerns and demand for apology are very reasonable to me, for what it's worth.

                •  What part was virulently racist? (0+ / 0-)

                  If a white man was there who hated gay people, I would be just as pissed off at Obama. I think McClurkin is a pig because he spreads the message I have no right to exist. He could be Chinese and I would still think he was a pig for spreading that message.

                  •  The blackface, (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    taylormattd, brklyngrl

                    the comments claiming that the black community is so hateful that we as a whole deserve to be disrespected in turn.  

                    It certainly wasn't everyone (in fact some of the first gay rights organizations and bloggers to oppose McClurkin's inclusion in the tour were African American), but enough that I started to pay attention to the undercurrents of some of what was being said.

                    That said, I am an opponent of religiosity and I do understand why McClurkin is so offensive.

      •  I think Bob (3+ / 0-)

        has said that he hasn't decided between Edwards and Obama.

        •  Than why not use his intelligence (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Jim J

          and excellent writing style to say something positive about one or the other? These anti-Hillary diaries are getting so tiring, we are all aware of her negatives, she may still win in the primaries.

          •  It's called fact-checking (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            cdreid, cville townie

            and it's very needed in light of everything that's happening.

            •  It called (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Jim J, denise b

              All negativity all the time.
              I'm not ready to support Obama, esp. given the issues I have outlined above, with  just "Hillary is bad". Populista and others are doing a good job telling me why I need to change my mind about Obama. These negative diaries do NOTHING for me as I know all of Hillary's negatives, they've been stated 10,000 times. And I know, I'm free to visit other diaries but isn't the issue here to show the positive points of a candidate we can all get behind, to get as many people working wholeheartedly for the candidate?

          •  Because (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            cdreid, cville townie

            as long as Hillary (and her posse) continue to do what they are doing, there will be other Progressives willing to stand up and call it what it is.

            You think we should let Hillary have her ways with truthiness and vile (and veiled) racial disparagement without a response? You think that we should, in response, just sing our candidates' praises and let the injury stand? That is so .... '90s.

            But, of course, that's where she and Bill and her supporters want to take us all. Wonder what happened to all that "bridge to the 21st century" thingy.

            Are you willing to travel back to the '90s - baggage and all? Or, would you rather move on and clean out the cobweb?

            •  Only thing is.. (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Jim J

              ..it has been addressed, 10,000 times. Again and again. There are many here who just ignore these "X sucks" diaries because they are sick of the constant negativity with much less of a positive message. Don't you think it's a better plan to get people to enthusiastically vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone else? That's the kind of thing that leads to people just sitting home and not voting at all.

              •  Then why don't you ignore the diary? (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                cdreid

                It's clear, you don't like Obama.  One reason, I feel legitimate, the other (Lamont?) is silly - to me.  That said, then read the diaries you find positive and avoid the ones you don't.  

                •  See my comment below (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Jim J

                  Isn't it a more productive strategy to tell people why Obama is the better choice. My point is, it is preaching to a choir writing 10,000 anti-Hillary diaries in a community where she gets 7% support. For every anti-Hillary diary that is being written, what are you doing to convince actual voters on the ground in say Iowa that Obama is the better choice? What are you doing CeeusBeeus? Just askin'.

                  •  you presumed (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Sagittarius

                    that because we are here writing diaries, the "on-the-ground" job in Iowa is being neglected?

                    Does it occur to you that, perhaps, both could be accomplished simultaneously? Division of labor rings a bell? Or were you and Hillary hoping that we'd be too bogged down on one part of the campaign strategy that we won't have the time and energy to respond when you send out your "unaffiliated" mouth pieces?

                    Proud to say I'm fired up, ready to go. Wherever I may be useful - here, in the snow, at the keyboard, on the truck, wherever. Selflessly. This is the beauty of an energized movement of dedicated supporters who are not in it for the benefit of feathering their personal nests and careers.

                    •  Me and Hillary? (0+ / 0-)

                      I am an Edwards supporter, thank you very much.
                      So, from your comment above, can I assume just 1 week away from a ctitical primary, you have not acted. The time to go out in the snow and the truck is now.

                      No one has answered my question: What does it accomplish to post diaries about how evil Hillary is on a site where she gets 7%? Seems like the most collosal waste of energy to me. Kos says to spend 1 hour on a diary. That is one hour that could be used phone banking or whatever, but writing to a community where 93% already agrees, what's the point? Kind of like writing 1,000 "Stalin was bad" diaries, well duh! But H. is leading in many polls in the REAL world. So the diaries here don't seem to be having that much of an effect.

                    •  Me and Hillary? (0+ / 0-)

                      I am an Edwards supporter, thank you very much.
                      So, from your comment above, can I assume just 1 week away from a ctitical primary, you have not acted. The time to go out in the snow and the truck is now.

                      No one has answered my question: What does it accomplish to post diaries about how evil Hillary is on a site where she gets 7%? Seems like the most collosal waste of energy to me. Kos says to spend 1 hour on a diary. That is one hour that could be used phone banking or whatever, but writing to a community where 93% already agrees, what's the point? Kind of like writing 1,000 "Stalin was bad" diaries, well duh! But H. is leading in many polls in the REAL world. So the diaries here don't seem to be having that much of an effect.

                      •  Fired up, ready to go (0+ / 0-)

                        Please inform yourself as to its usage

                        and  



                        origin

                      •  I don't have any number to back it up (0+ / 0-)

                        but I'd hazard that less than 20% of KOS members actually participate actively here. I'd then go so far as to say that only about 50% of the people who read the diaries posted here are actual subscribers.

                        So, you see, Kos is a veritable channel. Posting diaries here is not just preaching to the choir, it is reaching a far greater number of the audience than you'd otherwise be able to reach through some other smaller blogs. And, yes, blogging is an integral part of the Obama campaign and support infrastructure. I know that that may suprise you, but welcome to Campaign 2.0

                        •  I find your posts increasingly condescending (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          Jim J

                          You seem to think you are the only one aware of campaign issues and have the surpreme knowledge that little old ignorant me lacks

                          You still have not answered my question of what the 10,567th Hillary hate-diary is going to accmplish, what minds here it would change.

                          But I'm done talking to you, I am obviously stupid and pale to such a great political mind as you. You should e heading campaigns - you are oh so inclusive and welcoming to other view points.

                          •  Pipe down there, gladkov (0+ / 0-)

                            You inferred that I was sitting on my butt waiting to be called up to physically assist Obama's campaign "on the ground". You seemed to take "ready to go" literally, not knowing that this is what we say as we wear out the soles of our shoes knocking on doors. I pointed you to the origin and use of the slogan, just so that you would no longer miscontrue its intended usage.

                            You also postulated that posting here was a waste of time because everyone here is already converted, or, if not, would like to see only "positive" diaries. I pointed out there are a lot of lurkers on this site and that posting here is part of the "campaign" strategy.

                            Now, exactly which part of the above did you find objectionable?

                            •  welcome to Campaign 2.0 (0+ / 0-)

                              Look, I am hardly a hardcore campaigner but I have been involved in numerous campaigns, including Kerry, Lamont, Diane Farrell and a bit for Edwards, time preventing me from doing more right now. So I am also aware of campaign issues.

                              I very much dispute the idea that more hate Hillary diaries is going to make a difference days before the primary? Why? Is Hillary 7% in the outside polls like she is at this site? No, she is tied or leading in most polls, meaning there is a big difference in perception here at this site and the outside world. Obviously we are not getting our message across to primary voters as well as we can because many of those Democratic primary voters are not as horrified as we are re Hillary, even Kos has said the "Hitlery" meme is greatly exaggerated  both by the right and the left. Thus, I say we need another approach to effect actual change in the real world, this preaching to the choir does little, esp. at this late stage in the game. We may differ on this point but I really don't think you need to be "welcoming" me to anything, I am aware of the realities and the means of communication of modern campaigns.

                              Regardig the other issue: it's a valid question. You put up Youtube videos, does that mean you personally attended them? Maybe you have been in and out of Iowa and New Hampshire every minute, maybe you do phone-banking there every hour, I can't say, I don't know you well enough. But I can say many of the people here spend way more time bitching to each other at this site, recycling points made 10,000 times instead of changing the minds of actual primary voters who make the real difference - I would also include myself in that category.

                      •  It seems (0+ / 0-)

                        you are trying to go above and beyond to be fair with hillary judging by your comments and diaries.

                        You're making a mistake.

                        Hillary clinton isnt just a "moderate but good democrat". Her politics are those of Lieberman and her husband. And those are not the politics of progressives.

                        The reality here is that the DK community have made up our minds. We're STRONGLY pro edwards with Obama a completely acceptable alternative (as a community) and Dodd et al the same. But new readers come here every day. Millions of people check out dk and never register. Dont get involved. Dont speak. It is for them the Truth has to be repeated and loudly. We learned long ago what assuming people knew the truth ends with.

                        I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

                        by cdreid on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 02:21:20 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I disagree with none of that (0+ / 0-)

                          The point I keep trying to make is that there is a huge divide between what goes on here at this website and what is happening in the real world. Here she is 7% support while in many polls, she is the leader by several points nationwide. Even if 100% of all the people on this board are against Hillary, it does little to change the reality in Iowa or New Hampshire.

                          This is not an endorsement for Hillary, I am as aware of her many shortcomings as anyone else. But folks outside are not as aware or Hillary would be getting 7% there too. My point is: if we want to stop Hillary, we have to be changing minds of actual voters. Secondary point: Our system is very sick. I am against Hillary but she could well win, in which case I will enthusiastically support her because the Republican alternatives are much worse. It is then that these diaries do nothing more than stir up rancor that will be hard to take back: More and more people on this site are saying they will NEVER vote for Hillary ever, not matter what. Not exactly handing the victory to the Repug but also cutting out an important source of activism and support. If Hillary does win and the progressive community sits home or is luke warm to the idea and does not actively campaign, it WILL make a big difference

                          •  Put simply (0+ / 0-)

                            She was only ever high in the polls for two reasons:

                            Name recognition and Stunning MSM support.

                            Bill Clinton you may or may not be aware became our parties nominee purely because of outright msm cheerleading for him. Their plan was the same this election. But we the base have thrown monkey wrenches in their plans. When busted for deception the msm spins that everyone does it. When busted for racism the msm buries it. etc etc etc. The only way for us to stop the falsehoods the corporatist closet republicans are spreading to steal our party is to shout the truth to the rooftops. Your strategy wont do that. Your strategy will result in a republican as the democratic nominee and the "loony leftist base" once again shut out of its own party. I want a Progressive/Leftist President. Not a right winger using our brand name.

                            I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

                            by cdreid on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 04:07:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  BTW (0+ / 0-)

                            I too would have supported Hillary if she took the nomination once. Despite her neocon foreign policy. Her center right economic policy. The likelyhood she'll nominate centrist/right judges.

                            But i'll be damned if i'll vote for or support a racist or a candidate willing to allow racism for personal gain. F*ck her.

                            I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

                            by cdreid on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 04:09:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  But bashing gay people (0+ / 0-)

                              for personal gain is ok? Oh, yes, I know that doesn't count. That wasn't a big deal. Because, because - you say so, me and thousands of gay people are insane for saying it was homophobic to us. I'm saying that to gay people, it was exactly as bad as the racist comments, the same thing as if Hillary had a clan member at her rally. But the difference is, I still WILL vote for Barack if he wins the primary because I know African Americans AND gay people will fare far, far worse under a McCain, Giuliani or Romney presidency.

                              •  Dont (0+ / 0-)

                                Dont EVER put words in my mouth.

                                First i support Edwards. Second my once best friend was gay. He died of aids at a nearby hospital and i heard about it a year later. And while i find what Obama did reprehensible iit doesnt even come Close to racism. Being denied marriage is not the same as having Genocide practiced against your race no matter how victimised you feel. And in case you havent checked lately Hillary isnt in favor of gay marriage.

                                I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

                                by cdreid on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:29:29 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  Sorry I disagree (1+ / 0-)

                                  Recommended by:
                                  cdreid

                                  McClurkin says gay people are evil and don't have a right to exist. It's not a gay marriage issue, it is about more and more people in this country subjected to violence, hatred and discrimination. Very, very much like many African Americans suffered for many years.
                                  Again it is you who choose to make it not equivalent, to many people like ME who vote, it is.
                                  Who said anything about gay marriage? I'm talking about a bigot who says I am evil and sinful.

                                  •  Lots of people (0+ / 0-)

                                    are always going to say your evil yada yada. Get over it. Just as there will always be racists, sexists etc. What is important is the power of the state. Gay people havent suffered a percentage of what racial minorities and women in this nation and the world have.

                                    I believe firmly that rights are truely inate. And that who you sleep with, your sex or race or whatever are irrelevant. The state has no power to recognise marriage or not. It does anyway and that is both wrong, illegal and unconstitutonal. It does not have the right to keep you out of the military. It does. It doesnt have the power to discriminate re adoption. It does.

                                    None of that even compares with a nationwide police war against blacks and hispanics. It doesnt even compare with m