Clyburn warns Dems: African-Americans Matter!

As an African-American, I have to say that Clyburn has been our voice in the media the past few days.  What he has been saying  to the media (NYT, WaPo, Reuters, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc) is what African-Americans feel which is that Hillary is trying to damage Obama so he loses to McCain so she can win in 2012, Blacks are ANGRY at the Clintons for what we perceive as racial coding, and we feel that we are being taken for granted in the Democratic party.

Check out what Clyburn said the the WaPo.  We DO matter!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/...

CLYBURN SPEAKS TO WAPO:

"South Carolina Democratic Rep. James Clyburn warned today that if the heated Clinton-Obama contest continues on its present course it could have dire consequences for African American support of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, should she win the Democratic nomination, and on African American faith in the Democratic Party even if she does not.

'I may not know a lot about what drives some voters, but I know a little bit about African American voters," he said, in an interview with The Trail. "And if they feel as if they're being used, they'll stay away. They just won't engage in the process.'

'African Americans are really engaged in the process and I don't think we oughta be saying anything that might discourage these people or in any way marginalize them," he continued. "I am very concerned that if we keep talking as if it doesn't matter ... that Obama gets 92 percent of the black vote ... since he only got 35 percent of the white vote, he's in trouble. Well, Hillary Clinton only got 8 percent of black vote. [That's] like saying that 92 percent, they don't matter.'..."

THIS IS WHAT WE FEEL WHEN THE MEDIA GOES ON AND ON ABOUT HOW OBAMA CAN'T GET THE WHITE WORKING CLASS VOTE:

"Clyburn, the most senior African American in Congress and the third-ranking Democrat in the House, today said he was also disturbed by the vast quantity of press coverage focused on Obama's relationship to white voters, which he felt minimized the significance of African American voter choices. 'I think that the way everybody has been reporting this Pennsylvania thing, it's almost saying black people don't matter. Only thing that matters is how white people respond. And that's what bothered me. I think I matter.'..."

THIS IS CLYBURN VOICING OUR CONCERNS:

"I'm speaking on behalf of African American voters all across this country, many of whom I've talked to," he said. "When I'm having young college students coming up to me and telling me how they don't understand how I and other black political leaders allow black community to be so trivialized. One lady wrote me a letter saying, 'What is it about you that allows you to take this from Bill Clinton?'

"This is not about who is the nominee. It is about what kind of position our party is gonna be in whenever we get a nominee."

WHAT I THINK ROVE IS TRYING TO DO:

The more and more I watch McCain trying to reach out to the Black community by visiting the 9th ward, going to Selma, etc is that McCain wants to be there to pick up the pieces if the Democratic party fractures.  I think that Rove and Co. are encouraging the fracture by they themselves helping to keep Hillary in the race by praising her, Repubs voting for Hillary in Dem primaries (Operation Chaos), bashing Obama, etc.

I HAVE A FEELIING THAT CLYBURN ISN'T JUST VOICING JUST AFRICAN-AMERICAN CONCERNS...

•  I wish

  Clyburn would endorse Obama already.

  Hell, I wish he would've done so a long time ago.

  by livosh1 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:08:24 PM PDT

  •  I'm kind of glad he hasnt

    Else people could easily dismiss his words because they came from an Obama supporter. But instead, they are coming from the third ranking member of the House. As long as he votes for Obama at the convention, I dont mind him not endorsing.

    by jj32 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:40:16 PM PDT

•  I agree, especially...

  with what the GOP is doing and their spinmeisters on TV, Joe Scarborough, etc.

  This need to end.  But the GOP is picking up Clinton's water and she is smiling and allowing it to happen.

  I, too am AA and know this is how the community feel.  They can either steal the election or damage Barack so badly, they will not get our votes for a very long time.

  by icebergslim on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:08:31 PM PDT

  •  yep that is what the black community has

    been saying for quite sometime.

    If Hillary thinks she will get the Black vote in 2012 after she damages Obama, she has another thing coming.

    I hope that the Clintons and the Dem party HEED Clyburn's warnings for he is the mouthpiece for the black community right now.

    by Drdemocrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:16:34 PM PDT

    •  Makes it hard for Hillary to really win

      OH,MO, PA or many other states if we sit on our hands...or vote for someone else.

      by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:17:23 PM PDT

      •  Add Maryland to that n/t

        by mama hearts obama on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:27:07 PM PDT

  •  We need to change.

    I'm sorry but we never again need to be automatic dem voters.  The party has used us many times.  They need to work for our votes, from her on out.

    by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:16:38 PM PDT

    •  i 2nd that motion...I am becoming an independent

      by votingin08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:17:34 PM PDT

      •  I already did and so my are my parents.

        I'm trying to get all my family members to switch.

        by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:18:37 PM PDT

        •  living in GA we have to wait until after the

          election but my family, my parents, siblings, friends, co-workers are all switching...

          by votingin08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:19:54 PM PDT

          •  You can't switch before the GE?

            by nycstray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:21:34 PM PDT

            •  i dont think soo because i voted dem on super tue

              i will check and see

              by votingin08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:22:46 PM PDT

              •  We have to switch a year in advance for the

                primaries, but 25 days before the GE, iirc. I was going to switch sooner. but wanted to vote in the primary. I'm now FREE!

                by nycstray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:24:12 PM PDT

                •  if i can believe me i am going to spread the word

                  i am 32 and i have several more elections coming where I can make my vote count...and it will be their job to win it!

                  by votingin08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:26:26 PM PDT

        •  I think the whole country should go Indy

          Politicians can identify themselves, but we should bow out as citizens from declaring our party.

          And yes, I have also become an Independent.

          by nycstray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:21:10 PM PDT

          •  Yea the framers never intended for there

            to be only two parties.  They built in gridlock w/the checks and balances system, partisanship only adds to that.  

            by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:22:01 PM PDT

          •  My state does not have party registration

            and I've got to say that the politcal climate is much, much better than when I lived in NY. When everyone is an Independent, corrupt political machines find it hard to flourish and choke off open debate. We need a viable progressive party that plays hardball with the Democrats. What we have now is not working.

            by beltane on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:31:15 PM PDT

      •  Careful

        Re-register as independent, and you forfeit your voice in the process of choosing the Democratic nominees for office.  May not seem like much now...but I have plenty of friends who, in their anger at Congress in 2007, switched to independent or unaffiliated.  Then, along comes just the candidate they'd like to vote for (Obama), and they're out in the cold for the primaries, when they could have really made a difference.  

        I share your frustration about the party establishment, especially the Clintons.  But we'll never beat them by giving up the fight in the primaries.  

        by Big River Bandido on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:49:52 PM PDT

        •  I don't know I wouldn't mind seeing them

          lose year after year in the GE, spending all that money and political capital.   I don't want to be a sure thing for the Dems ever again.

          by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:51:03 PM PDT

          •  It is far more important

            for the Democratic Party to be reformed than to simply take back power under the "new boss/same as the old boss".  I was actually glad John Kerry lost in 2004.  Had he won, it would have been yet another "establishment" administration.  The reform movement would be totally discredited and the voters would blame the reformers for the failures of those who were never with us in the first place — simply because we supported them in the general election.  For that reason alone, I will never give my vote to Hillary Clinton.  All the energy, all the organization (read:  50-state strategy), and all the reform that has gone into our efforts the last 5 years would be for naught if politics-as-usual were to win out.  

            The only way I know of to reform the Democratic Party is to keep fighting in the primaries for our progressive candidates — and to deny the party our support in cases where they put forward the same stale losers.  That's especially true in a case like this, where the "insurgent" is clearly the stronger candidate.  

            by Big River Bandido on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:04:02 PM PDT

        •  Yeah, that's why I waited

          depends on the state. If you have open primaries or can change registration pretty close to the primary date, not so bad.

          As we start looking at 2010 here in NY, I'll pay attention in case I need to pull a switch back to Dem for the primary, but otherwise, I'll use donation dollars and GE votes to do my duty.

          by nycstray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:08:32 PM PDT

          •  I, too, am in New York

            and because of its byzantine nature, the voter registration process here is unbelievably susceptible to corruption.

            by Big River Bandido on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:16:49 PM PDT

    •  No one likes to be taken for granted

      It hurts to have someone demean you or ignore you, and then assume that you will fall in line out of loyalty; as if loyalty is a one-way street. Those techniques may be effective for a while, with especially committed persons, however, ultimately even the most dedicated person will eventually get fed up at being taken for granted in any type of relationship, even political.

      by RoCali on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:27:22 PM PDT

  •  useless

    Read the enquirer lately?

    by LaEscapee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:26:31 PM PDT

    •  He's just saying what his constituents are

      saying that's all.  Kind of like when Hillary just says what the Republican might say against Obama...

      by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:27:52 PM PDT

      •  I understand

        I just hold no respect for IBS who stated it was beleivable John Edwards fathered a child out of wedlock, as reported in the enquirer.

        by LaEscapee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:30:12 PM PDT

•  He's absolutely right

  African Americans are by far the most loyal demographic in the democratic party.  They vote Democratic at a rate of 90%.  

  by greenboy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:12:23 PM PDT

  •  I am tired of the media stating that

    the base of the Democratic party is white working class voters.  They are NOT the base.  They are swing voters.

    The base of the Democratic party IS African-American voters.

    by Drdemocrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:18:03 PM PDT

    •  YES....you are sooo right...they are ignoring us

      by votingin08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:18:55 PM PDT

    •  The white working class

      and the soccer/security moms are notoriously fickle. The fear card plays well with them and I see them as natural GOP leaners, especially with a falsely perceived "moderate" like McCain.

      by beltane on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:24:16 PM PDT

      •  they'll probably all vote mccain anyway

        so many of the white working class voters are reagan democrats who will be voting for mccain in the general anyway.  i should know, that's where i come from.  we need to stop worrying about them and work on the coalition Obama is building-progressives, multiracial, youth: that is the way to win and secure progressive wins in the future.

        by little lion on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:22:17 PM PDT

        •  I don't agree, I think they'll vote for Obama

          in the GE.  The case is easily made that McCain makes us less safe.  He is loose with facts (like GWB), he is ready to bomb bomb bomb Middle Eastern countries for slights real or perceived (like GWB), he has virtually no grasp of the current economic threats to the US and no reasonable plans to protect our economy, he thinks we can stay in Iraq for decades as easily as post-war Japan or Germany (with a thoroughly defeat military and political establishment), he has neither the reassuring charm and optimism of Reagan (and no this is not an endorsement of President Senility) nor the Code Red Threat Status Alerts of GWB.

          Wait until the GE.  Obama is building a 50 state GE organization.  We will win in November 2008.

          And personally, I can't wait to see that shit-eating smirk wiped off the face of Joementum at McCain HQ in November.  

          by Uncle Moji on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:42:17 PM PDT

•  Prominent Democrats should have said something

  a long time ago. It started before New Hampshire with Bill Shaheen and his crack dealer comments and has only gotten worse with each passing week. It was not necessary for people like Gore to endorse, but it was necessary that they publicly condemn the racist tone of the Clinton campaign. They failed to do so and I am disgusted.

  by beltane on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:13:34 PM PDT

  •  I feel the same damn way. n/t

    by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:17:50 PM PDT

  •  they may be giving her enough rope

    to hang herself. I doubt we're the only people who want Hillary not only to lose the nomination, but to vanish from American politics.

    Whoever runs against her in the NY State Democratic primary is likely to have the biggest state primary budget in the history of politics. I don't live there, and I'm planning to send money to her opponent.

    by alizard on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:59:37 PM PDT

    •  Me too n/t

      by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:02:42 PM PDT

•  Yes, yes, yes, yes...

  The Clinton narrative that Obama is "weak" with whites completely ignores the fact that she is MUCH weaker with blacks.  Probably because in her eyes, they don't matter.

  It's really disgusting.

  by jkddude on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:13:42 PM PDT

  •  The irony

    Neither Clinton would have a career if it weren't for the black vote.  The Clintons are the first to complain about loyalty, and the first to call people traitors, but how loyal have they been to the African Americans who saved their ass during impeachment.  

    by greenboy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:16:59 PM PDT

    •  Irony is the Dems never get 50 percent

      of the white vote.  Clinton got the least (and god I know ppl will blame Perot, but that wasn't it)

      by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:19:53 PM PDT

      •  Bill Clinton won with 43% of white vote in 1996

        Anyone who believes that Democrats have won GEs simply by winning the majority of the white vote has a short and racially confused memory.  Clinton won 39% of the white vote in 1992 but that was the Perot skew year.  Democrats usually hover around 40-43% in the GE.

        News for you folks, we are not the party of the white American majority, we are the party of American diversity.  The Clintons, more than most, know this, so this game they play of racial dogwhistling is venomous.

        by Uncle Moji on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:12:18 PM PDT

    •  Senator Clinton wouldn't have a career

      without Upstate NY. Face it. She does well with rural and working class no matter what race.

      And iirc, a prominent AA church in Harlem did get a 1 million plus earmark because of her to help with their community programs. It's not like they are walking all over people for the votes and then tossing them aside.

      It's not like Rudy or what's his face would have  given a damn.

      by nycstray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:29:22 PM PDT

      •  That's not the point. She's appealing to white

        working class voters by attempting to brand Obama as "the Black candidate'.  Then she expects to come back to black voters and get their support.  Many political professionals will say it's just business, but I would take it personally. It's disrespectful.  She's raising the spectre of race to use it as a political tool.

        by lordcopper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:38:17 PM PDT

        •  What Clinton is doing

          is classic Nixon "Southern Strategy".  

          by Big River Bandido on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:51:50 PM PDT

          •  Fortunately for Nixon, he wasn't dependent on the

            black vote.

            by lordcopper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:56:32 PM PDT

            •  Maybe she thinks she can make it up w/the

              Latino vote, but that wouldn't help her in OH,PA and other states.

              by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:57:33 PM PDT

              •  Plus she's pissed off a lot of youth voters.

                by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:58:00 PM PDT

              •  I think she is crazed by ambition and entitlement

                There is no rational reason for her to remain in this race.  Even if she could steal the nomination she loses.  She's damaging her reputation and husband's legacy daily.

                by lordcopper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:04:36 PM PDT

                •  To me even if she "wins" the nomination

                  she would have steal got it by dirty tricks.  It's just a diff. form of stealing.

                  by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:05:24 PM PDT

                  •  She's not going to get the nomination

                    Don't fret too much about this.  Right now she's like a hog caught under a gate.  They squeal like hell, but it's nothin but noise.  Just ignore it and let's keep about our business.  

                    The main thrust of this diary — that you cannot piss off the party's most loyal voters in this way — is not lost on the superdelegates.  That is reason enough alone for them to support Obama at the convention.  And they will.

                    by Big River Bandido on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:15:00 PM PDT

            •  The way the Clintons finesse it

              is height of cynicism in politics.  They've been playing black voters like this since at least Ricky Ray Rector and Sistah Souljah back in 1992, and probably longer.  By the time those travesties happened, though, Bill Clinton was already the party nominee and the option (George HW Bush) was simply unthinkable.  Nice to see the Clintons' tactics finally come back to bite em in the ass this time.  After this campaign, they don't have much of a future in national politics.  

              Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys, I say.

              by Big River Bandido on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:11:20 PM PDT

        •  How is she doing that?

          She doesn't see working class voters by race. And it's really stupid, imo, to see working class voters that way. It's a much bigger demographic with common issues if you don't.  I feel the same way about gender issues. Deal with the overall issues as one group, and break out the smaller identity issues as need be.

          For instance, health care policy is not drawn up by race, but by need and income, etc. Same with economic issues. She can say much of the same thing to working class whites as blacks or hispanics with just a few additions to show she understands the uniqueness within the smaller demographics of the larger one. This is actually where I think her experience shows over Obama's. Getting the message right that the larger group gets and then  the break out to the individuals. Her experience is more general and not so specific to a particular race. He's taking his experience and growing it to fit the national issue, where she already had that worked out. Now if you throw McCain and his recent comments on gender (equal pay), you get a different message because he does have all that 'experience'. If Obama can figure out the formula he personally needs to speak to the working class as a whole, he'll have them over McCain because I think he is more aware and has more depth of character when it comes to issues. McCain has been around long enough to know women don't just need educating and more training for equal pay . .

          by nycstray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:00:20 PM PDT

          •  I hold Sen. Clinton responsible for the comments

            of her husband, and her campaign.  I can't speak to how "she see's working class people", but I can predict the response from certain actions.  What do you think Bill was attempting to say when he accused the Obama campaign of "playing the race card" on election day and then denying it?  What was Ferraro's point in complaining about "reverse discrimination"?  These appeals (and there are others I could mention) are designed to raise the passions of people who are hostile to the aspirations of blacks, or at the very least under a lot of stress and aren't interested in "fairness" or "special rights" for people they are in competition with.  She (her husband and campaign) are purposely creating this divide between groups that should have common interests.

            by lordcopper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:24:01 PM PDT

            •  I don't see how Bill is for working class people

              when he worked w/the repubs to undercut dems and repeal Glass-Steagall Act.  Not like that had any affect on the housing situation hint hint.  Bill has sold out all Americns, just some are not fooled anymore, some people don't want to take another slap in the face from the Clintons

              http://www.pbs.org/...

              by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:31:40 PM PDT

          •  She does it through her arguments.

            We had a set of rules that allowed everyone to compete fairly.

            When she starts losing, she sees her votes in Florida and Michigan and suddenly it's so very important that those delegates be seated. Oh, that level playing field we had? Well, we need to just tip it ever so slightly in my direction. You know, Florida voters that have known me forever really do matter. What? They don't know this other guy? Well, that's not by problem...

            She sees Obama winning and suddenly big states are what matters. Swing states are what matters. Blue states are what matters. Suddenly certain voters are more important than other voters. Certain demographics are more important than other demographics. Oh, it's just practical you see... We're just thinking about November, you see. We need to be considerate of certain voters more than other voters.

            And Bill goes on TV and talks about how with winner-takes-all rules, Clinton would be winning. So if the majority voters want Hillary, we should just chuck out the opinions of the minority voters. No need for this proportionate stuff - we can trust certain voters to represent everyone. To draw an extreme example: A candidate for President wants to make lynching legal. Well, 51% of voters in Mississippi say that's just swell... no need to worry about the remaining 49%, we'll give 100% of the delegates to the candidate. The 49% will be well represented by the other 51%.

            People that have never been discriminated against probably don't notice this stuff. They don't see how subtle the argument can be - how shifting goalposts can be used to discriminate. I don't think the Clintons are doing it our of racial motives. I think they just see it as practical. Just as it's only practical to not disturb our soldiers by putting gays in the military. It's just practical... They don't see the great harm that they are doing. And as they do it, black voters increasingly move away from Clinton. Her supporters then charge them with racism for voting for Obama in large numbers! And the cycle of division speeds up...

            Now, I'm white, but I do a lot of hiring and I see this same tactic used when we interview candidates. After the black candidate is interviewed and we know  she's the strongest at accounting and weaker at purchasing, somebody on the committee, just trying to practical, you understand, argues that we don't really need accounting all that much and we really need more purchasing. Never mentions the candidate. It's presented as though they had been thinking about it all along and now, out of concern for the office, that we change, oh so slightly, how we rank the candidates. I have to chase this shit around all the time.

            by johnsonwax on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:50:47 PM PDT

          •  You assume she doesn't see working class voters

            by race, but that doesn't mean she doesn't.

            Here's my problem with her continued appeals to what she describes as her base of "working class" voters: are not a substantial number of African American voters "working class" voters?  If it were true that she has a broad appeal to working class voters regardless of race, why is she losing so substantively among black working class voters?

            Usually white Clinton supporters or white media types respond with this:  "Well, that's because they're voting their race."  

            Perhaps this is what you mean when you say that she "doesn't see working class voters by race." I guess black working class voters are curiously the only racially movtivated working class sector and vote only based on race but white working class voters have magically transcended race and meaningfully vote their class interest, and so vote for the similarly transcendent Senator Clinton.  This view, in my opinion, is fanciful and ahistoric.  

            by Uncle Moji on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:34:15 PM PDT

      •  Clinton's lack of leadership during Rwanda really

        showed me where his priorities are.  The black vote was taken for granted.

        by greenboy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:57:38 PM PDT

  •  It also doesn't make sense

    as Obama has thrashed Clinton in those states with the whitest populations.

    by beltane on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:36:36 PM PDT

    •  Conflicts often exist between blacks and working

      class whites where they are in competition.  In states with no black population it's not an issue.

      by lordcopper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:40:03 PM PDT

      •  Granted that's true, but what Clinton's

        people are saying is that Obama has no chance with white voters in general. And her deliberate stirring up of racial hostility in certain states is nothing short of criminal. Hillary is what is known in Dante's Inferno, a sower of discord.

        by beltane on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:43:40 PM PDT

        •  And the MSM is happy to give that meme

          an air of legitimacy.

          by lordcopper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:45:33 PM PDT

          •  because it keeps poor whites

            voting against their material interests and voting in the MSM's corporate choices.

            It is in HRC's interest to continue to sow racial discord (nice callout for Dante, btw) because she can only win by way of a divided electorate. That is also why she can so handily "tailor" her message to different groups--telling them what they want to hear and it sounds familiar because it recalls old prejudices.

            by kpbuick on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:49:53 PM PDT

        •  To me Hillary is scum n/t

          by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:47:26 PM PDT

          •  But she has a hold on a significant Democratic

            constituency.  If it were anyone else they would've been shown the door by now.

            by lordcopper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:06:45 PM PDT

      •  It wasn't a problem unitl the media

        and HRC decided it was a problem.  The media looked to see how AA's were voting, if Obama got to many votes something wasn't right.  HRC got 68% of the women voters.  Why haven't we heard about this trend?

        by Char on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:03:13 PM PDT

•  I don't blame people for thinking this

  Her behavior, as well as President Clinton's has been absolutely reprehensible.  One thing that bothers me as well is the focus on "white, working class" voters, as if they are the only ones that matter.  The African American vote is extremely important to the Democratic coalition.  Shouldn't we also ask why Clinton can't win the AA vote despite her huge advantages?

  Personally, I don't think she's gunning for 2012.  I think she believes (rightly IMO) that this is a Democratic wave year, and that the Democratic nominee can't lose.  A lot can happen in politics in 4 yrs., so I don't think she can count on that.

  by Unstable Isotope on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:14:10 PM PDT

  •  shes to damaged to make a comeback in 2012

    voters are already gearing up to vote her out of office

    by votingin08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:14:57 PM PDT

  •  "White, working class" is code

    for racist whites. Hillary's campaign has been about pandering to the lowest common denominator just like the Republicans always do. She has not said one positive thing about herself, only trashed talked all those groups who don't support her. If she is the nominee, it will be of a Democratic Party that has lost its moorings. The party would lose Blacks, the young, and the educated in favor of fighting with the Republicans over a declining base of older, uneducated white people.

    by beltane on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:21:18 PM PDT

    •  and when they say uneducated working class

      they mean stupid white racists...

      by votingin08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:24:18 PM PDT

      •  Well, if you're white and working class

        but you vote for Obama, you are suddenly moved into the "elitist" category.

        by beltane on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:26:28 PM PDT

        •  Ahhh...that's what I am, an elitist.. ; )

          ... thank God!

          by Donise on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:01:38 PM PDT

    •  You may want to look at the PA

      exit polls.

      by nycstray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:30:53 PM PDT

•  When I came to the states many years ago

  I was so surprised how blacks were not taking advantage of the potential political power that you could have.

  I am glad that it is finally happening - and if I may say -

  It is about time!!

  by sara seattle on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:15:21 PM PDT

  •  It's not just blacks, In most elections the

    majority of the electorate doesn't participate because they are turned off by the system (I believe this is by design).

    by lordcopper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:43:00 PM PDT

    •  I think you are right!

      This political cycle have taken a toll on me.  

      by Char on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:06:48 PM PDT

      •  That's the most appealing thing about Obama.

        I just want some positive movement on the important issues, instead of 20 more years of skirmishing  without any progress.

        by lordcopper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:09:49 PM PDT

  •  what are you talking about???

    perhaps you should read 18th and 19th century slave narratives and brush up on your 19th century US history. African Americans have been activists as long as we've been in this country. What stood for the mainstream media back in the day actually suppressed the news of slave insurrections because they didn't want to give other slaves ideas. We have the political power (if you could call it that) because of the hard m-fing work we've done since we were forcibly brought here.

    by kpbuick on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:54:26 PM PDT

    •  I am sorry if I upset you

      but I do not believe that blacks have taken advantage of the potential that you could have had for years.

      Way too many blacks unfortunately have not been interested in politics and that have lessened your potential power.  

      I fully understand the powers to be that worked against you - but on some level you might also agree that in many states, blacks - by sheer numbers would have been a power to be reckoned with - if people had voted in high numbers.

      So yes - I fully agree that many African Americans have been activists as long as you have been in this country - but I also hope that you see the power now in numbers where blacks will be a huge part in electing Obama ---

      my point before - as now - it is a matter of coming together and showing your resolve - because after this election - finally - blacks in America will be a power to be reckoned with.

      by sara seattle on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:16:56 PM PDT

      •  I'm wasn't upset and thanks for

        your kindness.

        If you look at the history of voter suppression in this country working against blacks you would see that often they were intimidated, threatened, and now we have electronic voting machines and caging.

        What has been a staple of this country is the desire to not have an active electorate, whether white or black. Back in the day, you could only vote as a white male if you owned property.

        If you were a woman you couldn't vote until the 20th century.

        As black people, we know our power and we know the powers that be that are against us.

        It has been a constant struggle. I still have my grandfather's NAACP memberhship card from the 60s. I treasure it.

        by kpbuick on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:23:04 PM PDT

•  If this was Hillary's plan

  she'd be much better at it.

  I think this is a stupid idea, one without merit.  It's tin foil hat time.

  Hillary wouldn't win in 2012, so there's no point to her trying to do this.

  by gooderservice on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:15:47 PM PDT

  •  There's no point to many things the Clintons do.

    by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:20:54 PM PDT

•  Clyburn--great leader

  And if Obama fails in November, I hope Clyburn runs in 2012. I would vote for him in an instant.

  by The Bagof Health and Politics on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:20:05 PM PDT

•  I'm still trying to figure out how ...

  ... Hillary Clinton plans to win PA, OH, FL and MO when she routinely loses 90% of the black vote because she and her husband have so utterly infuriated black voters.

  by Fozzie Bear on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:21:03 PM PDT

  •  Shhs don't point this out to her supporters.

    by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:31:26 PM PDT

    •  I don't know ...

      ... if her supporters were honest about how unelectable she's become perhaps they'd be more tolerable.

      I mean, let's be honest, if Obama were routinely losing 90% of a key Democratic constituency, a constituency that in many, many states is the difference between a Democrat winning and losing, they'd be screaming at the top of their lungs about it.

      I think it's time Obama supporters start screaming THIS at the top of their lungs: how can Clinton win in November if she's only getting 10% of the black vote? Doesn't that make her hopelessly unelectable?

      by Fozzie Bear on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:42:58 PM PDT

      •  Her supporters either don't care

        have been convinced that Obama played the race card to make the Clintons look racist and to make us vote for him, or will think that AA's will still vote for HRC.

        by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:44:30 PM PDT

        •  I know you can't convince irrational people ...

          ... but I've really reached my wits end on this stuff. All I hear from Clinton's supporters is how Obama's unelectable. Well, my lord! If Obama's unelectable with 40% of the white vote then what the hell is Clinton with 10% of the black vote.

          I mean really! You want to shake these people!

          Oh, what I would give for just a little bit of intellectual honesty.

          by Fozzie Bear on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:48:08 PM PDT

          •  I'm annoyed this can't get on the rec list!

            by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:48:57 PM PDT

            •  I'm REALLY annoyed ...

              ... that this is about the sixth diary I've seen on Clinton's troubles with black voters that hasn't made the rec list.

              This stuff should be a major topic of discussion here and elsewhere. And there's barely a murmur. I was hoping Clyburn's comments would change that but I'm not encouraged.

              Maybe if it were titled: "BREAKING: Clyburn warns Dems:  African-Americans Matter!"

              by Fozzie Bear on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:53:12 PM PDT

              •  A lot of the Clinton meme

                still gets pushed on Kos, kind of like subconsciously, ppl are use to ignoring minority issues until a Katrina, or a NYC police shooting happens, and then for a moment many are like "Oh man that's so bad, man this country is messed up, people should not be racist" and then they forget again.

                by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:55:35 PM PDT

  •  Not to mention her primary in 2012

    She has built up so much ill will that a wave of Black and liberal NYC voters could make her lose to a primary challenger.

    by beltane on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:39:14 PM PDT

  •  They figure they'll cross that bridge when they

    get to it.

    by lordcopper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:44:02 PM PDT

    •  You mean the bridge they burned?

      n/t

      by Fozzie Bear on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:54:20 PM PDT

      •  I guess I didn't think it through.

        by lordcopper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:55:33 PM PDT

•  it's very insulting to blacks

  that the Clinton's are insinuating they're only voting for Obama because of the color of his skin. People are way more diverse in their opinions and evaluations to be lumped together like that, no matter what race they are.

  by citisven on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:23:44 PM PDT

  •  Obama is a gifted person!

    I wasn't immediately for Obama.  I looked at him about 6 months before I made up my mind.  Most AA's didn't come on board with Obama until SC.  Actually HRC campaign strategy brought Obama AA's voters.  

    It was the Iowa Caucus and the close finish in NH, which was at least 95% white people that gave Obama his boost.  The AA's population woke up and saw the same qualities a lot of white people saw.

    There is some racial pride for AA's, but no more than the pride that the feminist feel when they back HRC.  Most AA's are amazed that it is perceived differently.

    by Char on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:19:13 PM PDT

    •  I think Oprah won the black vote

      There was just something really powerful about the richest, most influential, and most philanthropic African American standing shoulder to shoulder with Obama saying "it's time".  It really changed the trajectory of the race because Oprah's campaigning also won Iowa, even the woman's vote, causing Hillary to come in third.

      by greenboy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:34:09 PM PDT

      •  Uhm no I know it's hard to believe but

        Some blacks don't like Oprah, Really!  And Oprah did not win IA for Obama.

        by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:36:16 PM PDT

        •  Well the polls showed him surging as soon as she

          said she would campaign.  She gave him several straight weeks of wall to wall positive media coverage leading right in to the Iowa vote, not to mention 10,000 volunteers.  

          I'm not trying to take away from Obama's accomplishment. But part of being a brilliant politician is winning over the right people, and Obama was the first politician brilliant enough to inspire the most influential woman in the world, and, look at the result.

          by greenboy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:43:30 PM PDT

          •  Many polls had them tired or ahead by

            4 since august, those weren't on the MCM, but they were IA polls.  I lived in IA at the time.  Oprah got him on TVm but the youth gave him the win.

            by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:44:48 PM PDT

            •  Well Pew research did a poll that showed

              one in four people between the age of 18 and 24 would be more likely to vote for an Oprah endorsed candidate.  Oprah wouldn't be the richest person on TV if her show didn't appeal to a lot of young people, as that's the most important demographic for TV advertisers.

              But what really enegergized young people was the notion that Obama had a shot at winning, and seeing the most influential woman in the world campaign for your candidate gave his supporters and volunteers confidence.  Also, the media starting being nicer to Obama because Oprah has business ties to all kinds of mainstream media.

              If you look at the real clear average of polls in Iowa, Obama had a significant Oprah bump. More importantly she took women away from Hillary in Iowa (which caused her to come in third there) and took black women away from Hillary nationwide.

              by greenboy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:57:34 PM PDT

              •  I am a student and I was in IA at the time

                Really at least in my little part of IA we didn't go around discussing Oprah.

                by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:59:51 PM PDT

                •  Well students weren't the only people who voted

                  Obama always wins students, but what set Iowa apart was that it was one of the few places he won the female vote.  What made Oprah's endorsement so powerful is not only did she bring votes to Obama, but she took votes from Hillary in the process. In politics they call that a "twofer".  That's what caused Hillary to not only lose to Obama, but to come in third, and that fundamentally changed the dynamics of the race.

                  by greenboy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:05:43 PM PDT

              •  to paraphrase brother Kanye, "Oprah doesn't like

                black people."

                In the early days of her show, when she was still sporting a short fro, she would ignore or be obviously rude to the black and latina women in her audience and always with a hug and sympathy for white women. That is her demographic and that is the reason they feel entitled to tell her she was a "traitor" when she started losing weight and a "traitor" when she supported Obama. All these years she has been carefully neutral politically and with only one black friend, Gail. She embodied the comforting stereotype of mammy for many white women--sexually non-threatening and unquestionably loving to them.

                by kpbuick on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:01:40 PM PDT

                •  Exactly that's what I wanted to say

                  Many Whites don't know that many black women dislike Oprah!  Now you know our secret greenboy, don't go telling everyone!

                  by Shhs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:07:53 PM PDT

                  •  No one is suggesting that all black women love

                    Oprah.  But she's more popular among black women than any other demographic.  That's what the polls show and what her ratings show, and her loyalty has proven to be with black people (school in South Africa, promoting Toni Morrison & Maya Angelous, producing the Color Purple, and above all, campaigning for Obama).  As Oprah herself said "there's nothing better than being respected by your own people."

                    by greenboy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:19:08 PM PDT

                •  Racist crap

                  White women are looking for a stereotypical mammy?  What century are you living in?

                  by greenboy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:11:54 PM PDT

                  •  no it isn't racist crap. The racist crap is on tv

                    and in the movies. Name the three most popular tv shows starring black women in the 70s--That's My Mama, Good Times, The Jeffersons. The only two stereotypcially "beautiful" black woman on television were Dianne Carroll (sp?) who starred in Julia and Nichele Nichols as Uhura.

                    Look at the cover of Vogue from last month with LeBron James as King Kong carrying off a white woman.

                    Hollywood was built on racist stereotypes--The Jazz Singer, first talkie; King Kong, first high tech film; Birth of a Nation, fade outs and battle scenes and the first close ups.

                    Oprah made white women comfortable and didn't challenge their status as the most prized and beautiful objects on tv.

                    Why does the view replace one heavy set black woman with another one?

                    I know what I'm talking about--I teach race and representation for a living. And I teach all races to become visually literate. That is the only way to escape from the traps of race and vision, etc.

                    It is ironic that you would challenge my statement in a thread that deals with the invisibility and stereotyping of black voters with the charge of racism.

                    by kpbuick on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:21:26 PM PDT

                    •  Well Oprah's genius was to use her weight problem

                      which she had in the early years to her advantage by confessing the times she pigged out and by joking about not getting a date.  I don't think white women liked her because she made them feel beautiful, but rather because she was an overweight woman just like them who was open and honest about it and had a great sense of humour.  They also liked Rosie O'Donnel who copied Oprah's model of applying humour to her weight problem, so I don't think it's a matter of whites wanting to feel superior to blacks.  Instead I think whites were open minded to being friendly to a black woman, and Oprah brilliantly crafted an intimate persona they could relate to.

                      by greenboy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:31:36 PM PDT

                •  Oprah is a shrewed business person!

                  She did not ignore or be rude black women.  She made sure she paid attention to all the women.  Some blacks could not understand why she did this.   She's always done a huge amount of good for the black community.

                  Some people thought if she wasn't acting militant she wasn't being black enough.  A lot of prominent blacks have this problem.  She has tons of black friends.  Gail is her closet friend.

                  by Char on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:33:11 PM PDT

                  •  it wasn't a matter of acting militant

                    I grew up watching her and her demeanor and was always puzzled and hurt by it.

                    The first thing you have to query was WHY she was chosen in the first place. It was because she was overweight and didn't look like a movie star.

                    She built her empire and amassed her power and some would argue that her activism and choice of Obama are her "true colors" emerging. That again is why she was called a traitor for endorsing him. White women suddenly felt that she was choosing to be black rather than be their friend. I've collected the articles and interviews done with regular white women and their various disappointments with Oprah.

                    by kpbuick on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM PDT

                    •  Oprah wasn't overweight when she started out!

                      Oprah was a great communicator and took the opening when she had the chance.

                      The first thing you have to query was WHY she was chosen in the first place. It was because she was overweight and didn't look like a movie star.

                      Apparently she fit the image the network was looking for.  You are upset by this?  I don't know what you or others expected of Oprah.  I am proud she has done well.

                      by Char on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:47:07 PM PDT

                      •  she was overweight

                        when she took over Rob Weller's spot on the morning show on channel 7 in Chicago. She wore very little makeup.

                        That is my point. She did indeed fit the image that the network was looking for! Not thin, not beautiful.

                        For the longest, black women were not allowed in ads to sell perfume--now they get to market their own lines. It was hard for them to break into the fashion world and increasingly, the runways are becoming more and more white.

                        Beauty is often an issue of race and reflects our racial politics and prejudices.

                        by kpbuick on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:50:46 PM PDT

                        •  Here's where you're wrong

                          I watched Oprah's biography on A&E, and she actually got fired from her job as a TV anchor because she wasn't pretty enough. They told her that her chin was too long, her nose was too broad, her eyes were too far apart, and that perhaps she needed surgery!  

                          They didn't hire her because she unattractive.  In fact when she landed her first job on TV she was Miss Black Tennessee, but as her twenties progressed her looks went South so they demoted her to cohosting a morning talk show while they waited for her contract to end.  But the morning talk show became so su