Racism in South Carolina Could Cost Obama The Nomination

MSNBC's First Read has a powerful new piece about racism in the South Carolina primary.  In the piece, they point out that:

Obama is getting just an astoundingly low 10% of the white vote in the Mason-Dixon poll -- despite winning in lilly-white Iowa and his broad message.

So who are white South Carolinians planning to vote for?

Edwards, the only viable white male on the Democratic side and native South Carolinian, has surged among whites. He, in fact, now leads among the trifecta of candidates, 40%-36% over Clinton. Obama’s support among whites has been slashed in half since the last time the poll was conducted.

MSNBC provides a powerful account of where these numbers come from:

At a well-attended, Clinton event this morning at Benedict College, a historically black college, almost all of the attendees were African American. One white woman in attendance said she had been for Hillary since she began running. This gregarious woman ticked off reason after reason for why she’s for Hillary. When asked what she thinks of Obama and Edwards, she replied only, "I like John Edwards."

She was content to leave it at that, but after a five-second pause, this reporter asked, "What about Obama?"

She stopped, raised her eyebrows, and suddenly this once-engaging woman was looking around, over her shoulders at this room filled with African Americans. Then she got very quiet, leaned in, shaking her head and very quietly said, "I just don’t know."

"Don’t know what?" I prodded after a moment.

"I don't know," she said.

"Is it experience?"

"No -- could be. No," she said.

"Is it electability?"

"No. I don’t care if other people will vote for him."

"So...?"

"I just don’t know," she said, shaking her head and again looking around as if she were being followed. "I just don’t know."

I don't support Barack Obama.  I'm voting for Edwards on Super Tuesday.  I'm not even sure he's my second choice.  But I don't want him to lose this way.  If Obama loses the primary, or only gets the 10% of the white vote that the Mason Dixon poll suggests, it's further confirmation that we still have a long way to go in terms of racial healing in this country, particularly in the Deep South.

Let's do our best to make sure the MSM focus on this story tomorrow, now that it looks like Obama's victory will be much narrower than initially expected.  Sure, some of it may be a groundswell for Hillary or Edwards based on their message or personal appeal.  But the numbers and the anecdotal evidence are fishy.  Racism should not be the reason Obama has deflated momentum heading into Super Tuesday.

Kudos to MSNBC for this story.  If this pattern appears in the final result, let's make sure the rest of the MSM gives this story the attention it deserves.  Reading it made me ashamed and sad, and I'm sure all of us on this site feel the same way.

•  Tips/Flames

  A really sad statement about race relations in America.

  by Philosopher on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:36:09 PM PDT

  •  Edwards has already said that he doesn't want

    folks to vote for him just because of his race or gender.

    I agree - I support Edwards but I do not want him to win votes due to any entrenched sexism or racism in society. I don't think he wants to win that way, either.

    by grannyhelen on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:45:29 PM PDT

    •  Yes ... but

      he's also made very sure that voters understand that he is the one guy that "sounds like previous democratic presidents."

      If that does not code race, gender and dialect, I don't know what does.

      by Bronxist on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:48:59 PM PDT

    •  JRE always points to his drawl or accent or

      Speech patern as a factor for his ability to win!

      He definately knows what sells, that southern drawl and what doesnt, beacoup melanin

      by wuod kwatch on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:20:15 PM PDT

    •  hoomai29 has a diary up now with survey

      results from SurveyUSA that suggest that Edwards is not pulling white support from Obama at all.  It suggests Edwards has pulled white support from Clinton and has pulled REPUBLICANS from Obama, and that Obama has stayed about flat otherwise.  I am sure the Republicans are white, but you don't see a race effect on the category for just "white" voters, so I don't know if that excludes Republicans or if the raw number of Republicans is so small that in the total sample it only counts for about a 1 point loss.
      (hoomai29's diary)

      The point is, you don't see here the racial effects that the diarist is arguing for.

      Here are the tabulated Survey USA changes for the candidates from Jan. 18 to Jan. 25.

      Category           Edwards %           Clinton  %         Obama %

      Independents       27 to 39             32 to 20           29 to 36

      % Pts. Change       +12%                  -12%               +7%          
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Republicans        12 to 34             29 to 31           52 to 26

      % Pts. Change       +22%                   +2%              -26%
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Democrats          14 to 18             36 to 32           48 to 48

      % Pts. Change       +4%                    -4%                0%
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Blacks              3 to 6              20 to 18           74 to 73

      % Pts. Change    plus 3%              minus 2%           minus 1%
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Whites             26 to 38             50 to 38           22 to 21    

      % Pts. Change    plus 12%             minus 12%          minus 1%
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUSA Ttl. 01/18      15%                    36%              46%

      SUSA Ttl. 01/25      24%                    30%              43%

      % Pts. Change     plus 9%                minus 6%         minus 3%
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Zogby 01/23          15%                    25%              43%

      Zogby 01/25          21%                    25%              38%

      % Pts. Change        +6%                     0               -5%    

      by Mother of Zeus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:42:11 PM PDT

  •  It is heartbreaking for you to realize this

    but as a native Southerner, and half black myself, the rest of the country has been deluding themselves about the state of race relations in America.  In most of the South outside of large cities and college towns, it is now and forever 1962, and not in a good way...

    by jarhead5536 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:45:40 PM PDT

    •  you can add the North Coast of Cali 2 that n/t

      by bottsimons on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:46:42 PM PDT

      •  Really?

        How far North are you talking?  Fort Bragg?
        Eureka?  Mendocino County?  They struck me as pretty liberal.  Granola actually.

        by MKS on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:55:33 PM PDT

        •  Even traditionally "liberal" communities have

          their issues. I'm in the CT and even today getting an oil change watching MSNBC's coverage of Hillary at Benedict college someone leaned over to me talking about "how she just wants to give those people money".

          I was able to point out Benedict played a historic roll in the civil rights movement, at which point I think this person decided I probably wasn't the right type of person to share these sentiments with.

          And CT is a blue state.

          by grannyhelen on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:59:58 PM PDT

          •  Argh, could be....

            Hillary won New Hampshire with lower income whites who had fled Boston....

            During the busing controversy of the 70s, Boston had some of the most racist demonstrations against busing.....Those folks would now be older, white  & Hillary voters?

            Obama will have to transcend.....

            by MKS on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:05:48 PM PDT

            •  I don't know...

              ...but yes, there is entrenched racism in Boston and imo a lot of it has to do with Where People Live, or choose to.

              by grannyhelen on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM PDT

          •  Amazing how the racism is just under

             the surface.

             I look Scandinavian -- but I have relatives who look Native American -- we have a mixed ethnic heritage.

             In Washington State there are a lot of red-necked haters and I've been in situations where based on my outward appearance people have confided in my their deepest racists thoughts.

             I'll listen -- let them dig their hole -- and then I'll educate them. The potatoes that they had for dinner was thanks to South American Indians -- and the corn and pumpkins -- again Indians. Oh and the peanuts -- the genius of a blank man.

             Obama isn't my choice -- I made my choice based on issues. I've been a Jessie Jackson delegate -- and voted for a man rather than the woman candidate based on issues. (Besides the woman was a GOP religious right ring NUT.)

              But you know in the Caribbean -- even "light" black people discriminate against the darker black individuals. I have a dear friend who happens to be a blank woman who is a "light" Caribbean with small lips. She fell in love with a dark Caribbean man and had to leave the islands to be able to marry him -- she also had to wait until her parents died. The history she gave me on this issue could probably fill book.

             

             

            by Carib and Ting on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:16:27 PM PDT

            •  Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes!

              The things people have said to me because I look "white enough" would make some of you reading this retch.

              by bottsimons on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:38:44 PM PDT

            •  But we'll all be on our best behavior

              when it comes to Barak?? He has no chance and the Rethugs are supporting him knowing it.

              by JamesBrown4ever on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:13:56 PM PDT

        •  "l'il Alabama" in Del Norte: it's a world away n/

          by bottsimons on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:02:34 PM PDT

    •  I've seen entrenched racism everywhere from

      Atlanta, GA to Los Angeles, CA to Boston, MA and all sorts of places in between.

      And we're not talking about this as a country - instead we're letting the COM get us all hyped up on race and racism, without talking about why it exists or how it really affects people.

      Not one of our finer moments as a democracy.

      by grannyhelen on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:50:37 PM PDT

      •  I chose an arbitrary date in the early 60's

        as an example, because I think of that time as the lowest point in our history after Reconstruction...

        by jarhead5536 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:52:56 PM PDT

        •  Hmmm...after seeing a traveling exhibition on the

          history of lynching in this country, I might disagree with you. It was so prevalent folks sent each other postcards of lynching.

          It was so prevalent "Strange Fruit" became a classic.

          I think you can find lots of low points in our history after Reconstruction, unfortunately.

          by grannyhelen on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:57:17 PM PDT

      •  Entrenched racism is everywhere, here in

        Ireland, in France, in the UK, Italy, Spain, you name it, I've seen it everywhere, in Australia, South America, China, Japan...it's inherent in all of us, sadly.

        by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:03:56 PM PDT

    •  Edwards/Obama?

      Do you think a ticket with Edwards for president and Obama for VP would help break through that?  Edwards is my first choice, but I hate the thought that he could win because SC because so much racism still exists.  I would think an Edwards/Obama ticket would be pretty strong.  

      by Ramelle on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:51:42 PM PDT

      •  it probably would, but I'm afraid it might be

        workable for the "wrong" reasons. Even so, that would be an improvement. It's very difficult to talk about these things - for everyone. Race, socio-economic status, racisism, classism, are issues we wish did not exist, yet they persist. Openly discussing them lays us each open to allegations - no fun.  

        by bottsimons on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:57:04 PM PDT

        •  It is difficult

          But what's always been most powerful for me is to start by admitting that I'm racist.  I'm also homophobic. I'm probably anti-semitic too.  And I'm a Jewish lesbian.  The thing is, how can I not be racist?  I was raised in a small redneck Southern California town.  Kids in my school were white or Mexican (often what kids called "Wetbacks"), and my television idols growing up were The Brady Bunch, Charlie's Angles, The Bionic woman, The Partridge Family.  The way I see it, if I start trying to assert I'm not racist, all that happens is that I'm going to get defensive and have a hard time looking honestly at myself ("Oh no, if I felt that, that would mean I was racist and I KNOW I'm not racist, so of course I don't feel that").  Trouble is, that stops the dialogue.  I remember once, maybe fifteen years ago, I went to Detroit to see my brother in a play. I was alone in the audience and I sat one seat in.  A very large African American man came and sat in the aisle seat next to me.  Now I just generally don't like being squeezed into a seat rubbing shoulders with someone I don't know. If that man had been white, if he'd been a woman, I'd have moved seats without even thinking about it.  Because he was black, I went through all sorts of internal questions and anxiety and ultimately stayed in that seat and was uncomfortable (about rubbing shoulders with a stranger), because I was so concerned that he'd assume I'd moved because of racism.   What should I have done? I still don't know.  It's all so complicated.  I'm no expert on this topic, but I've thought about it a lot and I do believe that openly discussing is preferable to the other.  

          by Ramelle on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:32:11 PM PDT

          •  Oh yeah

            forgot to mention - the kids were also uniformly Christian. there was one other Jewish kid in my high school, and nobody liked him.  I think the closest I got to "Jewish" on television was Rhoda.  And um lesbians?  Don't even get me started.  Sure did like Charlie's Angels and the Bionic Woman though.  etc.

            by Ramelle on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:34:07 PM PDT

          •  The best way to assuage that guilt ...

            is to give money to Obama. Like you, I too was wracked by pangs of my internal racism, but I contributed money and Obama granted me dispensation. I feel a lot freer now.

            Given your comments, I'd say about 2 grand would cover it ... but does not have to be in one chunk -- $100 dollars, twice a week, preferably on an empty stomach.

            by Bronxist on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:54:27 PM PDT

            •  but

              if I really like Edwards' ideas/message/politics best of the candidates, would giving money to Obama be along the lines of not moving out of my seat at that play?  I mean, as I said, I think this is an internal struggle at many levels, not just around racism. I know for a fact that I have a ton of internalized anti-semitism. So, should I assuage my guilt by giving money to Lieberman next time around?  Maybe I should go ahead and send money to the Log Cabin Republicans while I'm at it.  I think I'd rather focus not on assuaging my guilt, but on having open and honest conversations and trying to learn.  In some ways, assuaging guilt is maybe just more of the same, trying to deny what's there by covering it up.  I don't know. I think you were being snarky, but with the tone of the primaries these days, it's hard to be sure...

              by Ramelle on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:20:56 PM PDT

              •  Just send the goddam check already ...

                I was being snarky ...

                Sitting and tormenting yourself endlessly with imagined internal monologues on your racism/anti-semitism/homophobia/sexism/ageism is nothing more serious than a case of narcissism.

                Even to be racist, you have to care about other people at a certain level.

                And perhaps you do.

                If so, do act like it. To not be racist you must act anti-racist.

                Get off your ass, stop trying to have honest conversations about yourself as the subject, and do something about people that are hurting.

                Or send Obama and Edwards some money.

                by Bronxist on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:44:57 PM PDT

                •  I send money to Edwards

                  every time I get a pay check.  And while I'm sure I have my share of narcissism (most therapists and writers do), I don't really sit and torment myself endlessly.  The comment about how resistant people are to talking about racism got me thinking and reminded me of that incident at the movie theater.  

                  by Ramelle on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:53:26 AM PDT

                  •  Apologies then!

                    Wish Edwards much luck today!

                    by Bronxist on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:48:22 AM PDT

                  •  This is so far past the life of this thread, but

                    I read, and thought about, what you wrote, Ramelle. Thank you for your openness, honesty, and adventurous spirit! So, you might know a thing or two about discrimination? Yes. It got lost along the thread, in the cheesy fundraising pitch and snark, but was there. We're all discriminated against in one way or the other, some more than others, and moreso at different times.

                    Even overly-priviliged white men have their moments, when they are discriminated against somewhere, by someone. These just happen to be fewer, further between, more forgetable, and generally involve far less violence and terror.

                    On the other hand, I'm absolutely certain I'm anthropophobic, but completely indiscriminate about it! (flashes big grin)

                    by bottsimons on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:58:47 PM PDT

  •  Maybe an appeal to white anti-gay bigots could

    work, the same way Donnie and Mary-Mary won the AA anti-gay bigots over.

    Can Obama find a way to win over bigots from other communities, too?

    Let's ask the Obama gang, this is their specialty. I mean, when they're not preaching the politics of inclusion.

    by kidneystones on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:49:10 PM PDT

•  Racism in SC? I'm shocked

  snark

  by deepsouthdoug on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:36:18 PM PDT

  •  And it's possible

    that this would have been the case even if Obama, Clinton, and their surrogates had kept anything about race or gender out of the campaign.

    by EricRSINY on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:39:54 PM PDT

  •  I have been screaming at my TV for three days

    Tweety and CNN have been voiciferously drilling into every eyeball watching their fact-lite broadcasts the supposed "Election changing" significance of the fact that Obama has lost (gasp) "50% of his white support since he has engaged in this race war with the Clintons". It is down to (gasp) 10% from it's previous highpoint of 20%.

    Nevermind that it is in fucking SOUTH CAROLINA! The reddest of red states. A state where they actually fly the confederate battle flag in the square in front of the capitol!

    The talking heads have been treating South Carolina as if it is a litmus test for cross racial appeal!
    Nevermind a 9 point victory over HRC in a state with a 95% white electorate.

    They NEVER talk about the fact that John Edwards is getting some of the best numbers of his campaign, and that is sucking WHITE VOTES from both HRC an BO.

    It really is disgusting. The very blatant dishonesty of their "Analysis" is beyond the pale.

    It appears to me that CNN and Chris Matthews have both crossed over shamelessly to the dark side. They are treating the "private" inside memos from Penn as if they were gospel. It just makes me even more dedicated to work my ass off for Barack.
    These people are always wrong, and they have been completely setup to work Penns strategy of lies after SC until Feb 5th that the SC Victory for Barack (if he even wins at all) will be tainted, and somehow "not count" because of the racial divides that exist in that state.
    It is simply the Clintons trying to scare off white voters in the Feb 5th states.

    by irishamerican on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:50:41 PM PDT

    •  The economy's sinking and this is the second lead

      ...keep that in mind and it puts the "coverage" of our primary in its proper context.

      by grannyhelen on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:02:46 PM PDT

    •  thanks for saying that Irish! n/t

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:07:03 PM PDT

    •  Not to mention the absurdity of

      saying that Obama has "engaged in a race war" with the Clintons.

      by Mother of Zeus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:30:21 PM PDT

    •  I think it's fair to ask.

      My main goal is to get a dem in the Whitehouse. If the voters in the general election can't vote in a black dem president. We may end up with the best alternative on the other side because of the racism we all know is there. Getting steamed doesn't seem to answer that and comparing how dems in the primary vote doesn't predict how the indies will vote in the general particulary after the repugs dirty tricks start. If wishing worked I'd be rich, smart, and handsome by now.

      by Maroon watch on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:54:43 PM PDT

•  Polls

  Yea but there was another poll this afternoon where he was getting 20% of the white males.

  It definitely is a favorite media narrative.

  by aimeeinkc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:40:11 PM PDT

•  He'll probably win SC despite white racism

  down there.

  by Geekesque on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:40:38 PM PDT

•  In most recent poll, Obama gets 21% of white vote

  to 38% for Hillary.

  Here is the most recent poll from SurveyUSA

  Obama is leading among all voters 43-30, with Edwards at 24%.

  Obama can get votes from whites....as shown in Iowa....The issue of not getting white votes in South Carolina is overblown.

  by MKS on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:41:12 PM PDT

•  BARACK OBAMA: OUR NATIONS ONLY HOPE n/t

  by Taz Man on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:41:59 PM PDT

•  Of course he'll get more than 10%...

  ...of the white vote.  Having said that, the racial history and dynamics of SC are a little different than in IA and NH.  File that under Pretty Damn Obvious.  Clinton and Edwards are objectively the beneficiaries of any white voter preference for white candidates, as Obama is objectively the beneficiary of any black preference for black candidates.  Usually we'd say that is a structural benefit to white candidates, but I'm wondering if blacks may not be a majority of SC Democrats, since the state has a Republican majority that is almost exclusively white.  

  by Rich in PA on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:43:09 PM PDT

•  Shouldn't surprise anyone

  I'm an Edwards supporter. Early on I stated that Obama couldn't win because of racism. I was called a racist. I said then and I repeat now, it's not racist to say racism exists.

  Our goal is not to defeat Hillary, it's not to elect an African-American or woman. Our goal must be to defeat the Republican nominee in November. It seems very possible that a message tomorrow will be that whites won't vote for Obama. If that message appears, Obama supporters, who happen to be anti-Clinton, will have two choices: stay with their candidate to the bitter end though it would likely assist Hillary to get the nomination (and possibly a repub prez) or jump to Edwards.

  by palpatine316 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:44:00 PM PDT

  •  HA!

    It seems very possible that a message tomorrow will be that whites won't vote for Obama.

    Just like in Iowa.

    Oh... wait...

    by Pd on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:55:24 PM PDT

    •  SC ain't Iowa

      I'm not suggesting that he won't get some white votes, but polls (for whatever they may be worth) are suggesting the numbers in SC won't look anything like IA. That could lead to a story and that story would be devastating.

      by palpatine316 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:59:57 PM PDT

      •  Palpatine! Exactly!

        I can only imagine it is people that have never encountered neo-confederates in the flesh that imagine otherwise.

        by bottsimons on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:12:59 PM PDT

      •  So, you are

        saying the dems might not win South Carolina in the general election??? Shocking!!!

        John Edwards, HRC ..none of them will win SC next fall.

        If Obama win SC tomorrow...he has the best chance of winning it in the fall..period.

        Obama has a far better chance of winning in November due to crossover appeal. Leave your racial bullcrap to the idiot pundits.

        by Hawkjt on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:33:08 PM PDT

    •  You can throw Iowa

      out the window. The fact there was an exceptional effort put into getting the students involved, it's not in the south and it was a caucus system negates all relevance in comparison.

      by LaEscapee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:06:57 PM PDT

•  And racism in South Carolina

  could also get Obama the nomination.

  by jlb3 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:44:40 PM PDT

  •  ? Please expound? n/t

    by bottsimons on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:45:22 PM PDT

    •  Works both ways.

      Some may vote against Obama because he's black, and some may vote for Obama because he's black.

      by jlb3 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:47:02 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for saying it n/t

        by bottsimons on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:47:41 PM PDT

      •  Which 'some' would that be? nt

        by kidneystones on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:51:19 PM PDT

        •  probably "people like me" ;-) n/t

          by bottsimons on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:14:22 PM PDT

  •  Blacks are < 15% of the population. How?

    If this is true, it will upend everything we know about American history.  It will cause a major warp in spacetime.

    Not happening.  Unless Sen. Obama can convince the majority of white voters to go his way, it's just a dream.

    by XerTeacher on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:09:27 PM PDT

    •  He did in Illinois

      Ever been to Southern Illinois?

      On the other hand, his opponent was Black, too.

      by Poor Grunt on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:10:36 PM PDT

      •  Alan Keyes?!?!?!?!?!?

        The fact that his opponent was fricking insane also helped...

        by Somebody Else For President on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:24:54 PM PDT

    •  30 million black voters

      combined with the non-racists ,other minorities and true progressives could give him 65-70 million votes right there.

      How many people hated bush more than racists hate black people in 04...about 60 million. Bush still won.

      by Hawkjt on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:36:11 PM PDT

•  MSNBC is sad and shameful

  At one point in last night's NBC news broadcast, Tim Russert put up these poll numbers showing Obama way ahead and then he actually said, "Now look what happens when we take away the black vote." I'd like to see what happens when we take away the stupid-white-man vote. This parsing of polling is not insightful or helpful. It is devisive and unamerican.

  by tbird on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:46:12 PM PDT

  •  Just one poll

    See below for a more recent poll with different results....

    by MKS on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:48:52 PM PDT

  •  Now, if Russert et all really CARED about race

    they might follow this up and maybe have someone like Michael Eric Dyson or Henry Louis Gates on the show to talk about how the African American community perceives the Obama candidacy, and what this means in the context of African American history.

    But, nope, they're just willing to segregate poll numbers and leave it at that.

    Ugh.

    by grannyhelen on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:54:10 PM PDT

•  Yeah, no more griping about Republicans

  if this is the truth about Democrats.  No more griping about Reagan speaking at the Neshoba Cty Fair, Paul Krugman's favorite story.  No more bitching about the "Southern Strategy."  Democrats respond to dog whistles and race baits every bit as well as Republicans, if this is how it is.  

  by Lois on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:46:23 PM PDT

  •  Hell YES, we yell about Republicans.

    There's an important difference between a group that might contain a few racists, and a group that encourages them.

    by mjfgates on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:54:06 PM PDT

  •  Ds respond it's just not integral to our platform

    by stanleyconstant on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:55:07 PM PDT

•  if it costs him here it will cost him in the

  general.  So I'd rather see how well he does having to face it, in what is now a racially charged primary because of the last couple weeks.

  If he loses tomorrow because of it, we'll have plenty of time to discuss it.  Hopefully by 2012, a different primary system will be in place anyway.

  by duha on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:50:17 PM PDT

  •  What primary system

    Can overcome racism?

    by palpatine316 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:52:02 PM PDT

    •  There is none. nt

      by hestal on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:56:41 PM PDT

      •  "Racism will never be overcome."

        That was from one of my white students, in class at a major research university, on Wednesday evening.  He thinks it's just impossible.

        But that's the very point of the Obama campaign.  He doesn't believe it, and I don't believe it.  I think the American people are better and nobler than that... no matter which candidate they support.

        by XerTeacher on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:11:15 PM PDT

        •  They are what they are, products of

          Evolution by Natural Selection.  They will not change.  We are what we are by age 25 or 30 and we don't change -- ever.

          by hestal on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:16:44 PM PDT

        •   "You are Special" by Max Lucado...

          The pretty & talented Wemmick's got stars, the ugly Wemmick's got dots. Every time Punchinello tried to exhibit his talents and failed, the other Wemmicks gave him more dots. One day, Punchinello met Lucia, who had neither dots, nor stars. They could not stick to her, because she didn't care what others thought. It's a heartwarming tale and something to strive for.

          by bottsimons on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:26:03 PM PDT

    •  a primary system can be less affected if it

      doesn't spend solid blocks of media time focused on one southern state.

      For example, IF Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina were all on the same day, you wouldn't have wall-to-wall coverage like it has been the last couple weeks on the particulars of a state with 50% black vote on the democratic side.

      by duha on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:23:19 PM PDT

  •  The voters in the general who won't vote for him

    because of racism are extremely unlikely to vote for any Democrat.  If we are talking specifically about the Deep South (SC, AL, MS, etc.) the odds of ANY Democrat getting regional electoral votes are very small.

    by msanthrope on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:31:49 PM PDT

•  Of course this is happening...

  ...America has come a long way but not far enough for the South to elect a black person, except an uncle tom figure.

  Obama won't win a single southern state, not to mention that those opposing him can fairly state he was in the Senate one year before he began seeking the presidency.

  Note: I'm black. Go Edwards!

  by stanleyconstant on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:51:22 PM PDT

  •  No Dem will win a Single Southern State

    Probably.

    If anyone votes against him simply because he is black means, IMHO, that their Dem Credentials were fairly weak in the first place.  They would probably end up voting GOP anyway.

    There are plenty of reasons not to vote for him.  His race is simply not one of them.

    There is a possibility that he might enjoy increased support because he is an African-American.

    Perhaps it would be useful to ask ourselves how much support, how much enthusiastic support, would Obama have if he was a White Male?

    by Poor Grunt on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:06:10 PM PDT

  •  No, Obama

    took office in january of 05. He declared for the presidency in March of 07. Two years. That is bill clinton math you are buying.

    When was the last time the dems took any southern state? Screw the south. I want the west. Colorado, Az,NM, Nevada..those are the growth states for dems.

    let the south wither away for all I care. They will be marginalized if they do not change their ways.

    by Hawkjt on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:40:13 PM PDT

•  You raise a troubling question.

  The Constitution does not prohibit people of any race from holding the office of President.  Nor does it prohibit homosexuals or atheists from becoming President either, but I think that it is more likely that a black man or woman will become President long before a homosexual or atheist will, provided that the electorate knows the candidate is homosexual or atheist.

  I think that it is too much to ask people who are racist or homophobic or who hate atheists to change or ignore their hate and fear.  It is too deep in them.  We are products of Evolution by Natural Selection and we are not all the same.  

  Rather than change the people, which I think is impossible, we need to change the way we select our government officials.  

  Congress is still dominated by white males over 50 yet they represent only a small part of the population.  Women have made some gains, but not nearly what any fair-minded electorate should have produced.  

  The system we have picks the wrong people for the wrong reason.  The government that these people produce is horrendous and is destroying our nation.  New candidates with new names and new smiles will make little difference in the long run.  

  I was fortunate that my peak earning years coincided with the Clinton administration.  I was able to retire at age 55.  But if my peak earning years were just starting now, I would not be able to retire so early.  

  Over the past 40 years, including this one, Democrats have been in the White House only 12 years.  This means that our nation has taken 28 steps backward into repression, ignorance, and hatred and only 12 steps forward.  We are 16 steps in the hole.  So from time to time we progressives may win power, but we will not prevail unless and until we change the present system to make it more fair and more responsive to the will of the people.

  by hestal on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:53:31 PM PDT

  •  Agreed. Athiests (me) and gays are last in line

    by stanleyconstant on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:00:08 PM PDT

    •  Mrs. Clinton is not an athiest but....

      by maxnyc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:09:49 PM PDT

      •  wtf

        wtf is that supposed to mean? Innuedo that she's not atheist but.. the other? Bah, I call bs.

        by discocarp on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:15:57 PM PDT

    •  In most aspects of life, that isn't true.

      Most people who see you in the grocery store, the airport, or a restaurant have no idea that you're an atheist.  To a lesser extent, that's also true if you're gay.  People don't cross the street beacause you're an atheist, and store security doesn't gravitate to you at the mall.  

      by msanthrope on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:38:07 PM PDT

      •  Racism and bigotry

        Racism and bigotry. Identical? No. Brothers? Yes.

        by discocarp on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:20:28 PM PDT

•  Not democrats

  I thought that people who felt uneasy with AAs had already left the democratic party and joined the republicans.
  Democratic racists have a very good alternative in the republican party and most whites in the southern states who call themselves democrats tend to be very progressive.

  by zezefe on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:00:01 PM PDT

  •  You are sadly mistaken

    It is a generational reality, and there are many long time Democrats who have race issues.

    by LaEscapee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:02:19 PM PDT

    •  Down South

      You have the Yellow Dogs, legacy of the Jim Crow era.  They may have moved along, buried years of racism with Reason.  But it is still there, you can tell in many cases.

      But they are dying out, becoming rarer and rarer.

      by Poor Grunt on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:09:12 PM PDT

      •  Except the Yellow Dogs haven't actually voted for

        a Democrat in 40 years.  Look at their reps in Congress.

        by msanthrope on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:39:47 PM PDT

        •  Actually

          I run into them here in Texas while phone-banking.

          There are quite a few that will NEVER vote GOP- further, will ONLY vote Dem in the General.  

          The most common story is that they (or their spouse) got a job in the 1960's with political connotations that made them Yellow Dogs, true and through.

          As I said, they are a dying breed.

          by Poor Grunt on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:46:55 PM PDT

•  Even if Obama loses because of

  racism he has pushed this country closer to equality more than anyone since MLK. WE will just have to keep pushing.

  by Mike S on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:03:57 PM PDT

•  Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the

  united states

  by maxnyc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:06:51 PM PDT

•  President Barack Obama of Illinois

  44th president of the united states 2009-2017

  by maxnyc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:08:31 PM PDT

•  Baloney - Clintons WANT racism to be the story -

  that's why they don't care if Obama wins SC as they have already assured that SC looks like the 'black state' primary.

  They know they'll cash in on expected white backlash about "America not being ready for a black man' or 'see how any black person makes it all about race' stereotypical claims.  It's all about making regular, less-informed voters in the rest of the country think that things CAN'T change, no matter who the black candidate is and what message he actually has.

  Despicable tactic by Clintons - one they're familiar with when Clinton dissed Jesse Jackson to garner the bubba vote in 1992.

  They believe American voters ARE racist - even Democratic voters.

  by Jail the BFEE on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:21:56 PM PDT

  •  Exactly. And this is a "fun" story for the

    media, apparently.

    It's all about making regular, less-informed voters in the rest of the country think that things CAN'T change, no matter who the black candidate is and what message he actually has.

    Exactly.

    by Mother of Zeus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:34:21 PM PDT

•  So what should we do? Give up?

  Ridiculous diary.

  So there's racists in SC... so we should vote for Hillary? Vote for Edwards? Let the racists win because they're too powerful?

  Are you CONCERNED?

  Tired of this crap. Worry about your candidate.

  Ours is beating his pants off.

  by Fishgrease on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:25:25 PM PDT

  •  "ridiculous" ? Wow. n/t

    by bottsimons on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:30:32 PM PDT

    •  Yup.

      Meaningless.

      Telling us about a problem the night before a primary.

      A problem that might not even exist.

      And if it does exist, again, what are we supposed to do about it? Vote for Edwards?

      Because he's white?

      by Fishgrease on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:43:31 PM PDT

•  You know, I'm a South Carolinian, and I'm so

  fucking sick of reading stuff like this here, and through the occasionally unbelievably snide commentary about the South and South Carolina on other sites. Were you going to point out that "10% of the White vote" in your poll probably represents 35 or 40% of the total number of White Democrats here? This state is overwhelmingly Republican. How many fucking white people do you think there are that ANY Democratic candidate is going to draw from? And of those available, how many do you imagine are going to vote for Obama, a senator over Illinois, over John Edwards, a native fucking son who grew up ten miles up the road from me? Some of you people need to get out of the house more. Drive through some of the rural South, from time to time. I would bet that you would find less racial tension in Greenville, Alabama than you will in East Los Angeles, or in Philadelphia for that matter. I am literally just sick of these hit pieces on the south.

  by steve davis on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:29:13 PM PDT

  •  whew...thanks for getting that off your chest...

    as for your point re: Edwards the Native son--spot on. It makes sense that a sizeable part of the Dem base in the state would attempt some sort of rally behind their native nominee--to send him off to Super Tuesday with confidence.

    I'll take it from the horse's mouth.

    by cataclysm on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM PDT

  •  I agree in principle, but

    I have to admit that I assumed that "10% of the white vote" doesn't mean 10% of the entire white vote in SC, but rather of white Democrats.  And, no, that's not too good.

    I don't know what the socio-economic status of most white Democrats in SC is, or even if it can be generalized about at all.  But if the large majority of white Democratic voters in SC are of lower socio-economic status (and particularly looking at educational levels), then their voting patterns also strongly follow trends already displayed in Iowa and particularly New Hampshire where Obama does not do as well among voters with less education.  Some of this already-established trend might track racism in the first place; it might also reflect that he does not emphasize issues of poverty to the same degrees as John Edwards does; and some of it may have to do with his somewhat discursive-sounding style (when he's not delivering a "big message" speech, that is).

    Obama's LOSS of percentage points among in the last week seems likely to reflect some racial issues, as he has been painted as "the black candidate" by the media and Clinton in a way that he wasn't before and some white voters might feel alienated from him as a result.

    But the overall 10% figure - without further information about other significant correlating variables such as income and education - is NOT in and of itself sufficient to draw firm conclusions about race.  

    by Mother of Zeus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:41:42 PM PDT

    •  So do you imagine the fact that Obama

      is going to win Illinois, and that John Edwards will probably get 10% of the vote there, mean that Illini have some kind of racial problem with White upper-class crackers? Of course not. It means Obama is the native son and that Clinton is going to garner a large part of the moderate Democratic vote, because frankly, moderate Democrats look back quite fondly on the Clinton years, and mostly don't blame Hillary for Bill's problems keeping his trousers on.

      by steve davis on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:47:09 PM PDT

      •  Are you replying to me?

        I don't really understand what you are saying.  Did you read my comment or is this supposed to be going to someone else?

        by Mother of Zeus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:50:38 PM PDT

        •  errr....maybe to someone else :-)

          I was replying to the comment that was linking some kind of causality between Obama's support amongst White Democrats in South Carolina with some level of inherent racism here. I wonder if that means that the 8% support that Obama received amongst Hispanics in Nevada (I believe I'm remembering that statistic right!) means that Hispanics just don't like Black people. Statistics and poll numbers are dangerous things to try to draw any general conclusions from.

          by steve davis on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:11:50 PM PDT

  •  SO wish I could rec that!

    But I can't. My rating ability was yanked.

    Please accept my thanks, Steve, in it's place.

    by Fishgrease on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:46:26 PM PDT

  •  Thank you Steve

    for the reality check from ground zero.

    I have a whole lot more faith in americans than the concern trolls on here.

    My 88 year old white mother in Iowa who has voted GOP since Roe vs Wade..caucused for Obama this year.
    These people on here are writing her off saying she is a racist or a religious nut. NO. she is neither of those. She is an american.

    by Hawkjt on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:44:26 PM PDT

•  The elephant in the room.

  
  So who are white South Carolinians planning to vote for?
  
  

  Can a 'white' person vote for someone other than Obama and not be racist?
  
  

  According to the poll referenced in the article, Obama's support amongst 'blacks' is 59%. John Edwards gets 4%.
  
  

  Does this mean that when over-whelming numbers are 'white' it's racist, but when over-whelming numbers are 'black' it's not?
  
  

  Note that the story does not reference other factors such as age, religion, education, or income. These would be equally indicative but are completely left out of the equation. Why is that?
  
  

  And what about regional influences? Edwards is a Southerner. Is a Southerner racist if s/he prefers a native son?
  
  

  p.s. I pretty much know this is flame-bait here. But it needed to be said, IMO.
  
  

  by two roads on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:31:22 PM PDT

  •  Flame bait my ass!

    Oh, you mean because of your Sister Soulja moment there?

    Well, I won't bother to take that on.  I disagree that you can flip those race things that easily.
    But with the rest, I agree.  Regional and other factors need to considered before drawing facile conclusions about the magnitude of the racial effect.

    by Mother of Zeus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:45:17 PM PDT

    •  May I call you Rhea?

      
      Just to be clear, the 'flipping' you refer to was in the form of a question (embed Jeopardy theme here).
      
      

      I'm a big fan of the Socratic method.
      
      

      by two roads on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:16:11 PM PDT

      •  Well, I think it is not necessarily incorrect

        to impute racism to a white voter not supporting Obama for his race, while at the same time not imputing racism to a black voter who IS supporting him for his race.  Now, personally, I think supporting a candidate for their race is just a bad idea, but that's a separate issue.  I think our history here does admit of asymmetrical assumptions about "racist" attitudes based on similar-appearing behaviors.

        by Mother of Zeus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:39:22 PM PDT

•  I don't know why thsi is a surprise.

  I hate it but that fact is there are many of voters that will decide this based on race. It makes me sick and I think time is the solution but with time racism will only be diminished, not abolished. So what do you want to do?

  by Maroon watch on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:42:30 PM PDT

•  It always works.

  It's called hegemony.

  by Immigrant Punk on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:45:59 PM PDT

•  race is a complex thing in this country

  and it will manifest itself in different ways in south carolina than it will in nevada, california, iowa or michigan.

  not sure that polling a certain way with whites in one area will necessary predict much with whites in another area.

  i suspect that regional political styles will play into things as well. for all the talk about race, obama strikes me as very much a midwesterner, in his accent and delivery but also his temperment. dean electrified the west coast, but fell flat in iowa. obama may well bomb with southern whites, but walk away with midwesterners of all races. latinos in nevada may well respond differently than latinos in LA, which might respond differently than latinos in the central valley, which would be different again than those in the urban bay area.

  regional identity is a messier bag than usually envisioned, because the pundits who create our discourse don't have to rub elbows with most of the country. a long campaign to the bitter end may reveal that we don't know our own countrymen and -women half as wel as we assume.

  by wu ming on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:57:25 PM PDT

•  of course clintons used racism to win

  by Zacapoet on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:06:09 PM PDT

•  If racism doesn't steal his nomination

  it will steal the general. It does take audacity to hope for a black President in this America. Obama has no chance other than to divide the party and hand the Presidency to the Rethugs just like Kerry.

  by JamesBrown4ever on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:11:57 PM PDT

•  So stay home

  pull the covers over your head and give up already.

  Everytime history is made..it is a shock to somebody who said it will never happen.
  Why the hell did Branch Rickey ever think a black man could play baseball in the MLB and not be destroyed?

  by Hawkjt on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:49:30 PM PDT