Are Hillary's Superdelegates OK with Racism?

The more I think about Geraldine Ferraro's smug racist comments on behalf of Hillary Clinton, the more I think I'm growing to hate the entire Democratic Party.

Why?

Because so many of our elected officials and party insiders are still supporting Hillary Clinton, who only benefits from this kind of racist garbage which has been emanating from the Clintons and their crew since before the South Carolina primary.

What's the point of these attacks, really, other than to foment racist feelings from within the Democratic party?

One point, which a devil's advocate or an actual demonic person might try to make, is that if Hillary doesn't test out racist, terroristic, dishonest, and slimy personal attacks on Obama, and we don't see how he overcomes them, then how can he stand up to the GOP when they do it?

This is the worst thing our party can do.  All we're telling young people is that Democrats are racist, too, and let scare tactics and racism influence their votes.  All we're telling Republicans is that they're right to try this stuff.  All we're telling every low information voter out there (most of them) that their race-grudges and their base fears might have some validity worth exploring.  That this putrid hate is acceptible behavior.

"This is politics," say Hillary's supporters, when endorsing racism.  "Politics ain't beanbag," they say, while putting on their best Karl Rove and Joseph Goebbels impressions.

Why are hundreds of our Democratic elected officials still backing this race-baiting horse?

Journalists, national and local to them, need to ask every single Clinton Superdelegate if they're okay with racist innuendo, if they strongly denounce and reject such comments and the people who make them, and if they feel comfortable being associated with hate speech and scare tactics.

•  I really don't like racism.

  In case you can't tell.  All of us are beautiful.  One life, one love.

  by Ouroboros on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:02:57 AM PDT

•  Party insiders aren't what they used to be

  Thanks goodness for Howard Dean's DNC chairmanship because I think we are seeing a sea-change as to who is and isn't a party insider.  If this was a Terry McAuiffe Democratic Party, Obama wouldn't have had a prayer with the superdelegates and the GOP would probably hold both houses Congress.

  by Woodwards Friend on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:09:09 AM PDT

•  They all need to be confronted.

  I would say that this is one of those fierce urgencies of now.  This kind of race-baiting has no place in any party I'd be a member of.  The outcome of this process determines whether or not I'm still registered as a Democrat next time around.  I thought our party was about rising above racism, not increasing its volume.

  by Ouroboros on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:19:36 AM PDT

•  This is a symptom

  of a glaring character flaw that is rampant in the Clinton ranks:

  The assumption that they know the score.  You see they think that they are being objective, that they are looking at the political landscape from a bird's eye view.  They are convinced of their own realism.

  Trouble is, it's looking like this time around, idealism might just win the day. Americans are saying "SCREW THIS SHIT!"

  Obama not only has picked up on this fact, he embodies this fact.  He is a giant FUCK YOU to the status quo.  And that's why he will win.

  Yes We Can.

  by Hark on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:20:01 AM PDT

•  It is insane that they just sit there...

  We are witnessing some spinelessness that is setting the party back 40 years.

  by magatte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:28:39 AM PDT

  •  Hillary being smashed by McCain

    will set the nation and the world back more than 40 years.  

    And the only way for Hillary to win the nomination is to destroy the party and alienate voters from voting.

    by Ouroboros on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:36:44 AM PDT

•  Obvious racism

  I live in Northern NJ, which is generally thought of us an accepting area with little overt racism.  However, this campaign has challenged that assumption as I see racism seeping to the surface.  

  I've now lost count of the number of Clinton supporters whom I've spoken with (mainly white women, and mainly those over 60 though also younger men and women as well) that when it comes down to it, they are 'not ready for a black president' which in my opinion is a nice, if that, way of saying that you are racist.  Governor Rendell of PA echoed similar comments a few weeks back.

  Before finally saying they are not 'ready for a black president' these people will use any argument imaginable, claim not to understand the underlying math, and willfully express hope that the superdelegates will give the nomination to Clinton as she is the "better nominee."  After rebutting all of the absurd claims [read: he's a muslim, he's unpatriotic, all he does is give speeches / no actual policy, he doesnt have foreign policy experience, its affirmative action [eg Geraldine Ferraro's comments], etc), they then play the "I just know" card, as if they are the all-seeing deity and know exactly whats going to happen, and then often you will hear of the disaster that would occur if Obama were elected.  I've even heard many Clinton supporters claim they will 'leave the country' if Obama were to win (to be honest, I now see this as a benefit of electing Obama)

  Its odd to me, as these people are supposedly Democrats...

  by amherstprep on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:36:19 AM PDT

  •  Hal Turner is also from North Jersey, I think

    The Bund Party used to be huge in North Jersey before WWII.  There is lots of racism everywhere in America and the Obama campaign will either excorsize it from us like the demon that it is, or it'll fall to it.  Hillary Clinton has chosen the side of the White Hood.

    by Ouroboros on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:39:03 AM PDT

    •  true

      the KKK was based in Southern NJ for a while as well

      by amherstprep on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:42:25 AM PDT

      •  Princeton was known as a Southern Univ.

        Don't get me wrong though.  There's plenty of racism everywhere, in every community.  And especially in the Clinton campaign.  They remind me of Sean Hannity (long-time friend of Nazi Hal Turner), issuing racist innuendo bordering on racist attack, time and again, innocently pretending that he isn't actually a total Nazi.

        Hey, what's the difference between somebody issuing a racist attack to win an election and somebody issuing a racist attack because they're simply expressing hate?

        No difference at all!  They're both racist pigs!

        by Ouroboros on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:49:56 AM PDT

    •  Oh come on now, this is an outrageous statement

      Hillary Clinton has chosen the side of the White Hood.

      Bullshit.  That's like saying that Obama has chosen the side of the Black Muslims because Farrakhan supports him.  It is a purely sophistic argument and has NO place in honest debate.

      by kbman on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:02:51 AM PDT

      •  When Hillary's People Stop Spouting KKK Lines,

        Or if she strenuously distances herself from those comments or the people who make them,

        I will take it back.

        Til then, I can't see her face behind the sheet.

        by Ouroboros on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:12:36 AM PDT

      •  Umm, Ferraro?

        Did you not see Ferraro's statement. Did you not see the turbin pics, and Clinton saying she didn't know that he was Muslim? Those were calculated releases from the Clintons that are overtly racist.

        While the statement may be slightly over the top, it is factually correct. Clinton has stooped to racism just because she wants to win. At least I hope that is why, because the other option is that she is racist.

        by smckenzie23 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:15:43 AM PDT

        •  Over the Top, Just Like Their Behavior

          Hillary has finally busted through decency's glass ceiling.

          by Ouroboros on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:22:13 AM PDT

        •  I'll agree that many things in this campaign have

          been characterized as racist.  The question is, can we have an honest discussion about the racial dynamics of this presidential race without having people scream RACIST! ???

          While she may have chosen her words in a way that left her open to this charge, there is a point to what Ferraro said.  The historic nature of his candidacy HAS helped boost his campaign.  To deny this is to be disingenuous and politically correct to the point of ridiculousness.  If he were a 40-something white guy with 2 years in the Senate it is highly doubtful that he would currently be the front-runner for the nomination.  This is partly because the Obama campaign cynically used the race card to get that lead.

          It helps to recognize that the terms racism/racist are intellectual constructs.  They are interpretations, theories, opinions, ways of viewing a given act.  Two people may experience the same thing and one will say it was racist while the other never had the thought enter their mind.  And both of them are perfectly valid interpretations as long as they fit all of the facts in  question.  Some things most people would agree are racist.  Other things are in a much more ambiguous zone.  And some things can be painted as racist despite being completely innocent.

          For example, what was it about Billy Shaheen's comments on Senator Obama's drug use that was racist?  Bill Clinton was questioned about drug use.  So was george bu$h, so was Al Gore.  Why is raising this issue with regards to Senator Obama racism?  Because he's black?  If that's the case then it is impossible to question him or criticize him about ANYTHING without being called a racist.  Seriously.  

          This is the same PC BS that the bu$h administration cynically exploited to push the Iraq war.  They would have Condi Rice tell the really big whoppers about mushroom clouds and such.  When people stood up to them and called her on her lies, these same people were attacked as being racist, misogynist, or both.  It was a very effective strategy because people soon stopped challenging Rice for fear of being unfairly smeared.

          There was nothing racist about Hillary's MLK/LBJ statement.  It was historic fact, and her point was valid - it takes more than inspiration to bring about change.  She didn't denigrate Dr. King's accomplishments, she just placed them in a proper perspective in the greater scheme of social change.

          There was nothing at all racist about Bill's fairy tale remark.  He was discussing Senator Obama's claims regarding support for the Iraq war.  He characterized Obama's version of the candidates relative support of the war as being a fairy tale, a fantasy, "made up" if you will.  There is no racism there.  It was only after his words were stripped of context and somebody added a racist way of interpreting them that people viewed what he said - UNFAIRLY - as racist.

          It is because of this shameless and cynical playing of the race card that I reject Senator Obama as a candidate in the primaries.  I will vote for him if he is our nominee only because I cannot in good conscience ever again vote for a Republican for anything.  There is nothing the Clinton campaign could have done to avoid being smeared like this.  The Obama camp knew they had a powerful tool that they could unleash whenever they needed it.  Just like a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, a savvy media guy like David Axelrod can make the most innocent statement into a racist incident.  An act which he has repeated several times in this campaign.

          by kbman on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:51:13 AM PDT

          •  Historic

            While she may have chosen her words in a way that left her open to this charge, there is a point to what Ferraro said.  The historic nature of his candidacy HAS helped boost his campaign.  To deny this is to be disingenuous and politically correct to the point of ridiculousness.

            Right, because it's so much easier to become a viable candidate for President in America when you're Black.  Cry me a river, angry white guy.

            The question is, can we have an honest discussion about the racial dynamics of this presidential race without having people scream RACIST! ???

            That depends: is there some racism going on?

            You fail to realize that if you're going down a list of statements from 1 campaign which may or may not have been racist, you might want to question the existence of such a list in the first place.

            And they darkened his photo.  And Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, twice.

            by Ouroboros on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:23:13 AM PDT

            •  Thanks for your OPINION

              Right, because it's so much easier to become a viable candidate for President in America when you're Black.  Cry me a river, angry white guy.

              Provide facts to back up your assertion please.  This is purely your opinion.  It is apparently pretty easy to be a viable black candidate if you're willing to dishonestly accuse your opponents of racism every chance you get.  This isn't the 1960's anymore.  It might surprise you to hear this, but racism is widely recognized as repugnant, especially within the Democratic party.  Accusing someone of racism is a very serious charge and carries great social stigma.  This is the stigma they have tried to place on Hillary and Bill.  So please tell me, what is the great disadvantage for a black candidate anymore?

              You fail to realize that if you're going down a list of statements from 1 campaign which may or may not have been racist, you might want to question the existence of such a list in the first place.

              I HAVE questioned it.  And it is my belief that this entire list is manufactured outrage.  Dishonestly put forth under-the-radar through David Axelrod's media contacts from his time as reporter.  This list exists because of the cynical misuse of the race card by the Obama camp.

              And they darkened his photo.  And Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, twice.

              The darkened "photo" was bullshit.  Markos was tripping on that one - looking for ways to attack the messenger since the message was tough to refute.  There was no "darkening" of the VIDEO, (not photo, at least get your facts accurate), it was a technical artifact from the process of transferring from a TV video format to an internet video format.  If their intent was to make Senator Obama look darker, why do it on the version intended to be seen by THOUSANDS on the internet and not do it the version intended to be seen by MILLIONS on TV???  Also, is it not somewhat racist to suggest that if he were darker it would be a negative thing?  I'm sure there are many dark-hued African Americans who resent this entire line of argument - and rightly so.

              Jesse Jackson DID win South Carolina twice.  Bill said that to try to minimize the significance of Senator Obama's overwhelming victory there.  It was stupid, but not racist.  Senator Obama ran in South Carolina AS the black candidate, bringing in Oprah to appeal specifically to black supporters.  He won South Carolina on the strength of the black vote, as did Jesse Jackson.  Had the Obama campaign not run on this appeal to African Americans in SC then Bill's comment would not be appropriate.  But they did, and it was.  But even though it may have been appropriate, it was not wise.

              by kbman on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:52:19 AM PDT

              •  When somebody says "That's your OPINION, man!"

                It usually means they've lost a debate.

                by Ouroboros on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:18:18 PM PDT

                •  Sure, easy out ...

                  Why don't you respond to what I wrote?

                  Can you even distinguish your opinions from facts?

                  by kbman on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:41:52 PM PDT

                  •  Or I was busy at work and now

                    Honestly not worth the effort.

                    by Ouroboros on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:58:41 PM PDT