MyDD :: Will McCain ride racism to the presidency? with help from Dems?

Will McCain ride racism to the presidency? with help from Dems?

by catchaz, Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:46:30 AM EST

This campaign, which with the first female and first African American to have a realistic shot at the Democratic nomination, (and first Hispanic if you feel Richardson had a chance) should have been the best of times. Instead, the rampant excuse of racism and sexism from INSIDE OUR party has made it at times the worst of times. I have never seen so many so-called progressives turn their backs on issues of importance to Democrats.

The wholesale denial of sexism from some of Obama's supporters was a hideous betrayal of progressive values. Likewise, the complete denial of racism, and even open embrace of it from SOME Clinton supporters was at odds with decades of Democratic priorities and values.

I'd like to think that after the nomination is settled, we'd go back to fighting racism and sexism TOGETHER. i am 100% certain that a President Clinton would do her part to fight racism, mostly by appointing progressive judges. Likewise, i am 100% certain that a President Obama would do his part to fight sexism, again, mostly by appointing progressive judges.

But i fear we will not get to that point. the racism fanned by SOME in the Clinton campaign and surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro is threatening to put all efforts to fight sexism and racism in serious jeopardy as too many so-called progressives have now gone through the looking glass to fight on the other side, some acknowledging that they are working to elect John McCain if Clinton is not the Democratic nominee.

While many claim this is the result of bitterness, i think this is a complete cop-out. this can only be the result of one thing: RACISM. many ex-Democrats have been whipped into a retro-racist fury by the seedy racists masquerading as Clinton supporters. make no mistake, these are racists in sheep's clothing. they care little or nothing about Clinton, they are just using her as an excuse to let their racist feelings out. Real Clinton supporters care as much about racism as any good Democrat.

But have no doubt, these racists CAN SWING THIS ELECTION TO MCCAIN.
If enough Democrats join the racist anti-Obama movement, the racists (who in many if not most cases are just as sexist as they are racist) will ride this wave of racism straight into the White House.

If you are a racist, none of these things matter. if you are not, then you damn well better speak out now and stop this sickness before it spreads further inside our party and leads to a McCain presidency. which would mean the end of any moves toward Affirmative Action (which benefits white women as much as anyone), any semblance of reproductive freedom, and any chance of ending the war in Iraq.

It is up to Democrats. this election is ours for the taking. the only way we can lose is if enough Democrats succumb to these racist impulses and desert the ticket, and desert all semblance of human decency. right now, far too many seem to be doing this. it will have DIRE consequences for our country, consequences no loyal Democrat or progressive could ever stomach.

Tags: racism, Barack Obama, John McCain, Democrats, general election, sexism (all tags)

Permalink :: 112 Comments :: Post a Comment

Racism doesn't even break top-10 issues! (1.50 / 4)

One of many problems I have with the concept of Obama being our party's nominee is that there are so many other issues that trump racism at the forefront of our society right now.

Is dealing with racism important? Absolutely.

Will I vote for Obama if he's our nominee come August? Absolutely.

That being said, like the Primary, I really have concerns about racism being the focal point of campaign dialogue. It doesn't even break the top-10 in issues which are top-of-mind with most voters! With:

--the economy tanking worse than it has since the Depression
--the War in Iraq
--healthcare
--global warming
--the ignoring of our infrastructure
--gun control
--a woman's right to choose
...and so many other matters of concern...the last thing I want to see is a repeat of the "issues" as they were put, front and center by the campaigns and the media come the general election.

But, it certainly looks like this is going to be "the game" in 2008.

And, if that's the case, we all lose.

McCain's so vulnerable on the issues--all the issues--why do we have to let the gamesmanship continue at the expense of everything else not being discussed?

This bothers me to no end.

by bobswern on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:05:28 AM EST

So fight against it (1.50 / 4)

And racism has been a problem in this country since we were a bunch of colonies. When do you suggest we deal with it? So sorry if it seems unimportant to you or if it's distracting from 'real' issues.

Obama has never worked to make racism a 'focal point of this campaign' It's been people like you who have done that. Hillary failed in beating him with race-baiting and McCain will too. This is something worth celebrating.

by Sun Dog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So fight against it (1.00 / 3)

Obama used race baiting to split African Americans off from hillary Clinton. His entire campaign has been about race.

by glitterannebegay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:26:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So fight against it (2.00 / 5)

Um I can chose the candidate myself. I'm black and completely disagree with your assumption that Obama "stole" blacks away from Clinton. I didn't know that we had to vote for her.

by sweet potato pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

utter bullshit (2.00 / 4)

During Iowa, as he ran one of the cleanest campaigns imagineable Obama was asked about Hillary's strong lead in support from African Americans. His response? He complimented the Clintons for having good relationships with that community and essentially asked, "Why should they support me at this point? They don't even know me yet. Just like any community, I have to earn their respect before they'll support me." Was that the Obama race baiting you're referring to?

How exactly did he race-bait to win in 96% white Iowa?

It was well known that if he won in Iowa and showed that he was a viable candidate who could win anywhere among white or black voters, many more blacks would probably rally to him. So he won Iowa, the numbers nationally began to turn to him and suddenly Hillary is making weird, confusing statements about the legacy of MLK.

That my friend is race-baiting. That's when you drop something out there that you can't really get called racist for but it's guaranteed to cause a backlash. So then you can play the victim of the backlash. Then you can divide people.

The very week that it was clear Hillary was losing support among blacks, she suddenly says something weird about MLK? Come on. This is a politician who knows exactly how different groups were going to hear that line.

No one really talked much about race until that moment. Obama started nothing about race other than the fact that he just happens to be black. That's the race baiting he's done I guess. He dared to be black.

Point to something else please so that you're not just telling me a black polician who has to deal with his skin is a race baiter.

by Sun Dog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: utter bullshit (2.00 / 4)

how about this memo?

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:50:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: utter bullshit (1.25 / 4)

there is nothing weird or confusing about anything she said about MLK - unless you're unbelievably stupid and don't know that it requires a president who is sympathetic to the need for civil rights in order to sign a bill into law. Since you're objecting to her historically and constititutionally accurrate statement, let me expand - a president who isn't sympathetic to the need for civil rights might well refuse to sign the bill.

Now, really stupid people who have mental problems may find that troubling, but politicians shouldn't be basing the campaign on the intellectual needs of fucking morons.

Yes, passing Civil Rights as law required a president to get it done. A non-president cannot sign bills. If you find that confusing, go back to fourth grade

by glitterannebegay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: utter bullshit (2.00 / 4)

You can't say with a straight face there was 'nothing confusing" about it.

She was comparing herself to LBJ, and she was comparing Obama to MLK.

Interpret her statement as you wish, but you need recognize how ambiguous this whole statement was.
For example which quality of LBJ was she projecting on herself, and which quality of MLK was she projecting on Obama?

Was is the charisma of MLK and his ability to motivate? Was it the fact that LBJ was a fascist bastard who called the junta in my country "the best system of government since Pericles"? Was it these people's corresponding races?

So which of these qualities am I supposed to accept as what Hillary Clinton intended?

But perhaps your answer is to call everyone who doesn't understand "fucking moron".

by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: utter bullshit (2.00 / 2)

Well, remember that Hillary Clinton was responding to the question:

Let me read you a quote from the speech he gave today. He said "False hopes? Doctor King standing on the steps of the Lincoln memorial looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington monument, sorry guys, false hope, the dream will die, it can't be done. False hope? We don't need leaders to tell us what we can't do, we need leaders to tell us what we can do and inspire us to do." Would you react to that?

Hillary Clinton was reacting to Obama comparing himself to MLK.

by souvarine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: utter bullshit (1.33 / 3)

Yes, anyone who doesn't understand is a fucking moron. She was simply saying that it takes a president to sign a bill into law. That's the beginning, middle and end of this issue which revealed just how fucking stupid a good part of the Democratic party is.

Here - watch the video yourself. She talking about it impacting people's lives. And that didn't happen - and couldn't happen - until the bill was signed into law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ikowGJj8 pg

by glitterannebegay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: utter bullshit (2.00 / 2)

"She was simply saying that it takes a president to sign a bill into law."

But Obama's trying to become president, same as she is, so if that's "simply" what she meant then it'd be the most meaningless saying in the history of politics.

What did she mean in the context then? Did she mean that Obama isn't presidential material? Did she mean that MLK wasn't presidential material?

Obama referred to MLK as a leader, did Clinton mean that MLK wasn't a leader enough? It takes a president?

What's the bloody meaning of "it takes a president" when both Obama and Clinton are running for the presidential nomination?

by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:15:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Context? Context? (2.00 / 1)

What's that? What she said was accurate. Just like the plain fact that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June. Nothing to see here folks.

The Bushies proved that you can win fake arguements by ignoring context and some people have decided that because they won that way, that's the only way we can win.

by Sun Dog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm t.r.'ing this for being a personal attack... (1.60 / 5)

"People like me?"

I'm going to vote for Obama, assuming he's our nominee! I say that in my comment.

Then again, I wouldn't want you to let reality get in the way of your rant(s)!

by bobswern on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:31:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

if the shoe fits... (1.50 / 2)

sorry but this diary was about how people who excuse racism will kill our party, and you come in and IMMEDIATELY excuse racism.

so yes, YOU put YOURSELF into the position of being exactly the problematic racism-excusing Democrat i was warning about. thanks for llustrating the problem perfectly.

i proudly accept your TR.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:42:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Show me where I "excuse" racism? (2.00 / 3)

You're just digging a hole for yourself.

You're talking to an Obama voter in the GE, too.

by bobswern on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

are you serious? (none / 0)

your whole first post denied the impact of, thus excusing, racism.

Vote Obama, that's good.

excuse racism, that's bad.

we half agree!
for this site, that's pretty good.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:54:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: are you serious? (2.00 / 1)

catchaz,

How old are you? Really, how old are you?

You are giving us this "idealistic politically correct" garbage lecture.

I was old enough when democrats lost with Mondale & Dukakis.

The views of Bob is shared by millions upon millions of concerned democrats.

What you are saying is, " lets make a statement, lets fight back, racism does not matter, we can overcome, lets make racial history, regardless of what happens" crap.

Again, how old are you ?

Racism is real. Bob did not make it up.

There will be millions registered democrats alone who will not vote for Obama because of his race.

That's reality. Bob did not make that up.

Take off the blinders. We are trying to win an election. While you are trying to make some historical statement in Nov.

BIG DIFFERENCE! You have a different agenda!

And you accuse anyone who is not part of your master plan as excusing racism.

by libdemusa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: are you serious? (2.00 / 2)

"We are trying to win an election."

Yes, but some of are doing it as merely a means to the end of improving the country and the world.

If you give racists the power to modify your vote, then you're giving racists the strength of your vote already.

This isn't about "historical statements". It's about whether we consider racists to be some of the enemies we're fighting, or whether we want them as allies.

You want racists to be your allies and vote for the democratic candidate. I want racists to be our enemies and preferably not vote at all.

by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:26:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

bizarre response (1.50 / 2)

your post here talks about all the wyas Bob decried racism and said we have to overcome it. but Bob's point was that racism is overrated as a problem. are you ahving reading comprehension difficulties? i don't know and won't ask your age either, but you seem to be comprehending at a grade school level.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:26:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sun Dog- Take the blinders off (2.00 / 1)

People like you?

Sun Dog,

Racism is real & will be front, center & left & right with Obama. Bob's thinking is shared by MILLIONS, I repeat MILLIONS of registered democrats.

You do not speak for all democrats.

This is the real world Sun Dog.

There are potentially millions of voters who will NOT vote for Obama because he is black.

That crap will not show in any Gallup, Surveyusa poll. It will only show on election day!

That's reality & not made up by some MYDD blogger.

You're the one who is pretending that it is not a factor.

It is a factor. A major one.

Democrats will win big in November with House & Senate races.

Its ONLY Obama who will give All Democrats lots of sleepless nights.

For all the MSM propanda about him bring in new voters, we will also lose millions of registered democrats who will vote for McCain.

And yes, that's not make believe either.

And yes, if the GOP was not in such a mess, McCain would be winning by a landslide today against Obama.

That's how weak this guy is.

Even Biden, Dodd, Kerry, Bayh, Edwards would all be stronger than this guy.

by libdemusa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sun Dog- Take the blinders off (2.00 / 5)

"There are potentially millions of voters who will NOT vote for Obama because he is black."

Certainly. There are millions of racists. It's time to start defeating them and marginalizing them to the fringes of the political spectrum of the American nation.

If not now, then when? When the GOP will be even stronger than it now is?

by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so we give in to the racists? (1.75 / 4)

that is a hdeous post. you are saying that since there are raicsts in America we shouldn't nominate a Black man??!?!?!?!!?!! you ahve officially endorsed the racists! what the fuck are you doing?

yes, racism is a factor. it is something we have to OVERCOME.

sexism is also a factor, are you saying we couldnt nominate Clinton either? i notice your list includes only white men, are you saying we can only nominate white men? and that we aren't doing it NOT because WE are racisT but because the voters are? that is the most blatant acceptance of racism i have seen here. thanks for admitting it, i guess, but it is shameful and hideous and WE WILL NEVER GO ALONG WITH IT. we won't vote "white men only". HELL NO!

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's wrong with your "Shift" key? n/t (2.00 / 2)

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:47:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sun Dog- Take the blinders off (2.00 / 3)

Then why is he ahead in the polls?

by interestedbystander on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:33:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apparently those polls don't count (2.00 / 2)

Just like my state doesn't count because we use a caucus system to allocate delegates.

All of this garbage here sounds like nothing other than an argument against nominating any black candidate ever.

by Sun Dog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:55:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Racism not top-10 issues! if you're white... (2.00 / 2)

i'm sorry, but this is a disgusting and racism-excusing response. racism is only a minor issue if you are not a person of color.

you say racism isn't a "top 10" issue, but reproductive freedom is? that is OBVIOUSLY putting the rights of one group above another. you are right that reproductive freedom is important, but you are dead wrong about racism. (and the denial of racism's impact will lead to a president McCain who will also end reproductive freedom. our issues are interelated. you're insistence on ignoring one of the most important Democratic issues hurts YOUR issues, too.)

if there are enough Dems who think like you do, who only care about issues that affect THEM, not about OBVIOUS problems that affect other people, WE WILL LOSE THIS ELECTION. and we will lose it because people like you dismissed the importance of one of the most important issues in our time, and one of the most important issues in the history of this country.

just such a sad misguided response. very very depressing.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:18:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop ranting and read my comment. (2.00 / 3)

You ignore what I say to further your "case."

Prejudice is a very important issue. It's not the only issue. That's my point. Cut and dried.

All the troll-ish comments in the world mean little if you read what I wrote.

Reality--it's more than one issue!

The majority of voters in this country--by far--are concerned with many issues, quite a few of which are more top of mind than racism. For instance, how do they put food on the table in light of our economy?

For the majority, this trumps their concerns about racism. But, for many, this campaign's all about racism, when there's much more than needs to be discussed.

People look like idiots attacking someone like myself as being racist. That's getting pretty played-out. (Aside from it being grossly insulting and about as true as flying pigs.)

Quit it with the insults...or continue to disaffect!

by bobswern on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:27:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop ranting and read my comment. (2.00 / 1)

So what's to say that sexism wouldn't be problem if Hillary had been the nominee?

by sweet potato pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:31:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop ranting and read my comment. (2.00 / 2)

considering 50% of the American people are female, and she is married to a popular President, it would have a harder time affecting her than Obama, who is part of a race that only makes 12% of the American electorate as a whole.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:35:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

TR abuse (2.00 / 2)

Would you mind explaining to me how this post is in any way, shape or form TR worthy? Thank you.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/31/2 1812/4748/9?mode=alone;showrate=1#9

Gobama!

by USArmyParatrooper on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:40:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop ranting and read my comment. (2.00 / 2)

You do realize that many of those women are republican and don't like Hillary Clinton. Also, did you not notice that Hillary isn't getting 92% of the female vote? How is she supposed to get that amount in the general?

by sweet potato pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:59:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop ranting and read my comment. (2.00 / 1)

women make up a larger percentage of the electorate than the blacks, the general electorate when you add the Dems, Indys, and Repubs as one whole electorate. There are far more white Republicans and Independents who will run away from Obama than Hillary. Notice how Kerry got 51 percent of the female vote, and still lost. If he had gotten 55, 57 percent of the female vote, he'd have won. Hillary can do that, but also not like Obama will, he got 88 percent of black support. She doesn't need 92 percent in the general electorate, thus she only needs to get more than 53, which will be easily done.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:09:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop ranting and read my comment. (2.00 / 1)

Please prove that Hillary would get more of the female vote than Kerry? You would have to take into account Republican and Independent women which Hillary has polled poorly among. Also, you need to consider the electoral college. In places like Ohio, PA, VA the black vote makes a huge difference as those are guaranteed democratic voters(so long as the nomination doesn't appear to be stolen). Their are many conservative women in those states that just won't vote for Hillary.

by sweet potato pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop ranting and read my comment. (2.00 / 1)

prove she wouldn't do better than Kerry. If you believe she wouldn't, you're off your rocker. By your token, what about the whites who won't vote for a black? The thing is, we've already seen that inside our own party.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:32:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop ranting and read my comment. (2.00 / 1)

You also noticed that about 13% on average of Hillary's supporters wouldn't vote for her in the general compared to an average of 5% of Obama supporters according to the exit polls. Now tell me exactly how she gets elected if 13% of those folks who voted for her in the DEMOCRATIC primary wouldn't vote for her in a GENERAL election.

Again, women could come out in droves for Hillary in staes like California and New York and that still wouldn't help her get to 270 because those states are already blue. Yes, Hillary is receiving hardcore dems but that's it. She is not receiving the independent and swing voters that we need in order to win elections. Her coalition is deep but not broad as compared to Obama's. Translation: she's maxed out. Obama on the other hand can increase black voter turnout in places like Ohio and PA and VA as well as youth turnout to offset negative losses by those who refuse to vote for a black man which is a rather small majority.

He's actually already done that in the primary which is why he is winning and she is not.

by sweet potato pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, I understand and agree with you. (2.00 / 3)

My point here is with regard to all prejudice.

It's a very important issue; it's just not the only issue, and IMHO, there's a lot more that needs to be part of the discourse this year.

From where I'm sitting, this election (in our Primary) has focused upon prejudice, in all its shapes and sizes. And, I think if the candidates, themselves, were pressed on this (and they've commented on this publicly, too), they'd agree with me.

THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT NOW.

by bobswern on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

totally dishonest response (none / 0)

you CLEARLY said racism wasn't an important issue. now you change that, just a little, to say it's important, but not that important. not much better, IMO.

i think you revealed your true feelings, and my problem with them, perfectly in one line:
"The majority of voters in this country--by far--are concerned with many issues, quite a few of which are more top of mind than racism."

the MAJORITY. that's exactly who feels racism is not a top priority. the MAJORITY - white people - who aren't affected by racism. to say that the concerns of white people should be the only ones that are "very important" is BLATANTLY RACIST.

quit with the denial of racism, or continue to help John McCain.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:37:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You continue to misrepresent my words! (2.00 / 4)

Prejudice (racismn, sexism, etc.) of all sorts is an important issue. I'm very, very clear on that.

I'm also very, very clear on other facts.

It's not the only issue.

For the majority of voters in this country, it doesn't even break the top-10.

What's false about anything I say here? Read my words upthread. Don't distort them. It is what it is.

by bobswern on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you still don't get (1.66 / 3)

this is the problem:

"For the majority of voters in this country, it doesn't even break the top-10."

the MAJORITY of voters are white. so BIG SURPRISE that racism isn't in their top 10.

but this is AMERICA, we respect minority rights, and minority issues. not just those that concern a "majority" of voters. at least some of us do.

again, it is really not helpful for you to come into a discussion of racism and say "it's not important to the MAJORITY of voters." so what? it is important to any person who is a caring feeling human being. I HOPE you are wrong that the majority of voters don't care much about racism, but i fear you are right.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:22:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you still don't get (2.00 / 1)

Uprated for TR abuse. And it's a good point.

by Mobar on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:59:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Blatant H.R./T.R. abuse by a commenter. (2.00 / 4)

I'm reporting this to the moderators.

You're grossly abusing your blogging priv's. So, when you rant about no longer having TU status going forward, remember what I'm telling you here.

Your choice is to remove these ratings now or deal with the consequences of your actions.

by bobswern on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:47:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i have explained all my TR's (none / 0)

i don't care what you say to the mods. i will be glad to explain each and every TR i have ever given on this site.

but I did NOT TR your hideous remarks, i disagreed with them in responses. so i hope you're not talking to me.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:50:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

oops (none / 0)

i see that was to a commented, sorry for responding.

still, you TR'd me here for nothing, so i don't think it behooves you to bring the mods' attention to undeserved TR's in this thread.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a troll diary. (1.00 / 2)

If you're not for Obama you're a racist.

I'm not for Obama.

And I am not a racist. I just want a quality president for a change (whoops, there's that word again!)

The diarist couldn't even come up with anything original and had to use the old "Ferraro is a racist" BS again.

by CoyoteCreek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you're not for Obama, you're a racist. (2.00 / 1)

I'm not for Obama.

And I am not a racist. I just want a quality president for a change (whoops, there's that word again!)

The diarist couldn't even come up with anything original and had to use the old "Ferraro is a racist" BS again.

by CoyoteCreek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism doesn't even break top-10 issues! (2.00 / 1)

Whether you think he's been allowing surrogates to "play the race card" or not, Obama has already been sticking to the issues against John McCain. One of the reasons this primary was so devoid of issues-related debate is obviously because the two dems are so close on the issues. Once the race is between Obama and McCain or Clinton and McCain, the identity politics that have divided the dems will probably take more of a back seat to the issues, or at the very least have to share the stage to a much more significant amount than in the primaries.

Also, when the insinuations of racism and sexism are coming from an old white male rather than a female or a black man, it will be much less well received.

John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country

by minnesotaryan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The most flagrant racist this year: (2.00 / 3)

Jeremiah Wright. That's the nub of Obama's problem. He needs to somehow move back to the 'post-racial' candidate he was in Iowa, before the effective but groundless racism accusations against the Clintons. But the Wright videos, and now the Pfleger video, are hard to put back into Pandora's box.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:13:13 AM EST

complete nonsense (2.00 / 2)

Jermiah Wright has absolutely zero power to enforce his 'racism." racism is the meeting of bigoted beliefs with the power to do something about those bigoted views. white people have this power, this "reverse discrimination" bullshit is just another ReThug talking point.

it is a sign of how loud the racists are, even on a supposedly Democratic site, that the first 2 respones were first excusing racism, and next blaming BLACK people for racism. this is really really sad and really really depressing. and it may be a sign that racist Democrats WILL deliver this election to John McCain.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:23:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: complete nonsense (none / 0)

Racism is racism, unfairly and unreasonably generalizing about others based on their race. People on the receiving end don't like it, and don't like the idea of politicians associating with racists as I've defined them.

I realize you're just being politically correct and are supported by an enormous academic superstructure in your changing of the common sense definition. But you're still talking complete nonsense.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The most flagrant racist this year: (2.00 / 3)

I'm sorry but are you black? I am and I know racism when I see so don't you dare try to tell folks whether or not the Clintons race-baited or not.

by sweet potato pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:32:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The most flagrant racist this year: (2.00 / 1)

just because you are black does not make you the arbiter of what "race-baiting" is.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:34:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

DiamondJay is poster child (1.00 / 1)

for the racist wing of our party.

i knew you'd show up, you never let a chance to dismiss racism or attack a Black person go by.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:39:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Respectfully (2.00 / 5)

I have observed sweet potato pie routinely call people racists on this blog, and you have just done the same thing to DiamondJay.

It's an abhorrent practice and needs to stop, thank you.

by phoenixdreamz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Respectfully (none / 0)

thank you for saying that respectfully.

however, i will not stop complaining about racism until the racists stop making racist posts.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's funny (2.00 / 3)

I have observed people routinely freak out at sweet potato pie for having the temerity to honestly express her responses to their posts. I may not always agree with her responses, but I've never had the impression that she throws around the term "racist" loosely or automatically. Certainly not to the automatic degree that many defensive posters around here assume that any discussion of racial implications means they're being accused of being in good standing with the KKK.

Racism is real. It doesn't go away if we ignore it. It's not all white hoods and n-bombs. And it's not an abhorrent practice to notice its play in our discourse. I value sweet potato pie's perspective and believe it is offered in good faith and not merely trying to shut people up. I suggest you try reading her the same way.

by Mobar on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The most flagrant racist this year: (none / 0)

It's my humble opinion and you have a right to yours, whatever your and my races are. Whoever has the best evidence is right.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

by fairleft on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 2)

"Jeremiah Wright. That's the nub of Obama's problem."

Agreed. Since that time, Obama's campaign has ceased acquiring momentum, subsisting primarily via treading water based on delegate totals achieved up to that point.

by phoenixdreamz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:33:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will McCain ride racism to the presidency? wi (1.50 / 2)

well then, maybe because our goal was to put a Dem in the White House, Obama should not have run because his campaign has brought out racism in many people, because of his pastors and smears against many of Democrat's political heroes. and these have brought out the racial resentments that elected Nixon and Reagan.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:33:44 AM EST

Re: Will McCain ride racism to the presidency? wi (1.00 / 2)

Agreed. Obama has caused all of the racism in this election himself. It's his fault. He's tearing America apart!

by Lance Bryce on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:35:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will McCain ride racism to the presidency? wi (2.00 / 1)

Sun dog you need to get better at recognizing snark - this doesn't deserve a HR.

by interestedbystander on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:41:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you kidding? (2.00 / 3)

Obama's race is his biggest asset. Geraldine Ferraro said so. It makes everything easy for him!

by Lance Bryce on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:34:49 AM EST

Re: Are you kidding? (none / 0)

John Kerry said so as well. Obama has pointed out that had he not been black, he wouldn't received the attention he got when elected to the senate, nor the million dollar book deal. Claire McCaskill has made the same observation.

by glitterannebegay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding? (2.00 / 1)

Great. He gets some attention.

But once he gets it, he faces hurdles. He has to denounce every loony thing that black people associated with him have said.

by Lance Bryce on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:01:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding? (none / 0)

No, just when prominent associates of his engage in public, overt misogyny. He does have to denounce that, and had he apologized to clinton the first time, it would have sent the signal that using Trinity's pulpit to engage in public misogyny against the first viable female presidential candidate in Obama's name was unacceptable.

Obama didn't do that. And so the women of this country have had this shit thrown in their face repeatedly. 49% of women now have a negative view of Obama - that's gonna hurt. Close to 50% of Clinton supporters are saying they won't vote for him - crap like that is a large part of the reason.

by glitterannebegay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Racism aint' the problem (1.14 / 7)

Racism has always been on the table. It's no reason for Obama to not run. Most Democrats aren't racist.

Obama's problem is that women don't like him. He's run a deeply, overtly misogynist campaign and his supporters have shown no restraint whatsoever.

It's Obama's own rhetoric, the rhetoric of his supporters, and the creepy, fascistic tone in so many of the "Obama is the nominee, get used to it" diatribes that are going to hurt him. It's his refusal to apologize to Clinton over Pfelger/Wright/Rhodes that is going to hurt him the worst.

Don't pretend our aversion to being insulted in that fashion, and Obama refusing to apologize for such bigotry unleashed on his own behalf is racism. You aren't going to intimidate me into shutting up by accusing me of racism. I know bigotry when I see it and Obama is a bigot. 49% of women now have a negative view of him - that's gonna hurt.

by glitterannebegay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:35:08 AM EST

HR'd for "Obama is a bigot" (2.00 / 2)

sorry, that's going too far on a Democratic site.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism aint' the problem (2.00 / 2)

Please try and keep up with the facts. He has denounced both preachers. Rhodes was nothing to do with him - he no more needs to denounce her than Hillary does the vile nonsense spewed by her supporters at NQ, TM and His44. I doubt if anyone outside of 4 or 5 websites is even aware of the incident. The Wright furore has passed, and has done him no lasting damage.

He has not run a "deeply, overtly misogynist campaign", he has just run against Hillary, for which some women seem unable to forgive him. A few mild slights - after all this is politics, what were you expecting? - do not add up to deeply and overtly misogynist.

by interestedbystander on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:48:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism aint' the problem (none / 0)

If Obama had distanced himself from those attacks, then we wouldn't see them happening repeatedly at Trinity. But we do. Obviously, it's perceived that there is no penalty for using misogyny against Clinton in Obama's name.

As for those websites, none of them are run by persons with a nationally syndicated talk show. And none of them have called Obama or his wife - a fucking anything. But that's the difference between the two camps - we aren't seeing video footage on YouTube of Clinton supporters laughing uproariously while nationally syndicated talk show hosts engage in racist diatribes against obama. You don't see guest preachers at Clinton's church getting up doing cakewalks while mocking Obama to the amusement of Clinton's fellow parishioners. You don't see one network getting in trouble for repeatedly using racist rhetoric to demean Obama while supporting Clinton. You just don't see it. It's a one way street. And now, you have Obama supporters threatening to riot in Denver is Obama isn't given the nomination.

by glitterannebegay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:14:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism aint' the problem (2.00 / 1)

They've called them both way, way worse on those websites. The secret service are investigating one of them for death threats against Obama. Randi Rhodes did not make her comment on her radio show, she made it at a private function. There are plenty of youtube vidoes of Gerry Ferraro on her racist rants. Obama supporters are not threatening to riot any more than Clinton supporters are. It is a two way street, I'm sorry you can't see it.

by interestedbystander on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:27:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism aint' the problem (none / 0)

No, the obama websites are unbelieavably hostile against Clinton. And both Digby and Taylor Marsh have had to shut down comments because they were sick of being called cunts by Obama supporters and Digby is not a Clinton supporter. No one, NO ONE, has had to shut down comments because of clinton supporters.

Go ahide, liar, link me to a video of Ferraro saying something racist.

Private function doesn't make Rhodes outburst any less offensive. You simply aren't seeing that kind of behavior out of Clinton supporters. Just like you aren't seeing her ministers and guest ministers engaging in racist diatribes. But you see misogyny over and over and over again in events held in Obama's name by his misogynist supporters. And high profile people defame Clinton in the most misogynist terms available to no response from the obama camp.

The obama camp has been the most alarming bigoted development I've seen in the past fifty years in the Democratic party.

by glitterannebegay on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:00:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will McCain ride racism to the presidency? wi (2.00 / 3)

I won't vote for Obama. Not because I'm racist, but because I just don't like the man. I find his speeches hollow and he seems like an "empty suit" to me.

Obama reminds me a lot like Reagan, a man who spoke well but didn't do anything good for this country. Obama does not appear to have done anything good for this country and we are left to only "hope" he does. I can't base my vote on hope.

Just because I don't like Obama, it isn't right to call me a racist.

by wblynch on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:55:47 AM EST

not racist, just not smart (none / 0)

no one HAS to vote for someone they don't like. it is your right to withhold your vote from someone if you don't like them.

that said, this si one of the most important elections in history, Obama is in the mainstream of the Dems, McCain is in the mainstream of the GOP. so i have to say anyone who doesn't vote to make sure we don't get President McCain is helping get us more war, less civil rights, less justice, less reporductive freedom. that's fucking up, BIG TIME.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not racist, just not smart (2.00 / 1)

The problem is that, Obama have done nothing to prove that we can trust him to end the war or get more progressive judges or actually do anything else.

It is a very good strategy to call the ones that wouldn't vote Obama racists. In a latte sipping liberal like me that would provoke guilt. I didn't like the guy and I didn't want to vote for him and I couldn't picture him as president of united states but at some point in this campaign I would have voted for Obama just to prove to myself that I am not racist but then I find out another black politician that I could easily picture as POTUS and I could easily voted for him and the guilt is gone. After that I could judge him based on his policies and his qualification and guess what right now I would vote Clinton>McCain>Obama and this come from a person that would proudly call himself a socialist.

I think we the latte sipping liberals screwed up big this time. We nominated a rock star. He is nothing more. He has no qualification or accomplishment to be POTUS and he has no plan to change anything in Washington. Still the leftie that I am if he does a bold move in health care or education or greenhouse gas reduction I can let myself vote for him in General Election.

by navid on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:35:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not racist, just not smart (none / 0)

This is certainly not one of the most important elections of American history. 2000 was definitely more important. 2004 was more important still.

There is nothing in particular that makes 2008 any more important than any other regular old election.

Perhaps this is your first time to participate in a presidential election. Then it makes it important to you.

But the elections of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and even Jimmy Carter were much more important than this one.

Even with John McCain, 2009 will be a better year than 2001-2008.

by wblynch on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

totally clueless (none / 0)

"This is certainly not one of the most important elections of American history...Even with John McCain, 2009 will be a better year than 2001-2008.
"

apparently you have never heard of the Supreme Court, or any courts in America. if 8 straight years of ReThug appointments turn into 12 years of ReThug appointments, things will get WAY WORSE.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bye (2.00 / 2)

Then don't vote for him and expect to be banned from Mydd next week because this site is about electing democrats. I will be watching your comments and recommending that you be banned if you continue with this once Obama is officially nominated.

by sweet potato pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Appointed You? (2.00 / 1)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guards?)

We will be watching you too in the interests of fairness, balance and democracy.

by superetendar on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Appointed You? (2.00 / 2)

Not a problem. I'm here to see democrats elected. I was a supporter of John Edwards in 2004 and he lost but I didn't stomp and say that I wouldn't vote for Kerry. I voted for him because he represents democratic values just like Barack Obama. I personally didn't care for Kerry but I sure as hell wasn't voting for Bush.

People can be disappointed but I'll be damned to vote against my interests because I'm upset that my particular candidate in the party that I belong to didn't win.

by sweet potato pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:39:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Appointed You? (none / 0)

"People can be disappointed but I'll be damned to vote against my interests .."--sweet potato pie

One man, one vote guarantees that you look after your own interests. You cannot suppress anyone else's opinion, critique or voting choice. The best you can do is argue, reason, cajoal, beg, ignore, hate, abuse, but you cannot censor anyone else to advance your own view. You cannot also assign greater value to your own interests or vote than any other man or woman.

by superetendar on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Appointed You? (2.00 / 2)

Um my comments were in reference to this site. The person is saying they won't support the democrat. This site is about electing democrats and suppresses the voices of those that don't agree. What's the problem? I'm saying that if he/she is not interested in seeing democrats elected then they need to find another site to participate at.

by sweet potato pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:53:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Appointed You? (2.00 / 1)

Well banning anyone that disagree with you is hardly going to help you elect a democrat. If everyone here supports Obama anyway that would give you no information about th emind of rest of America and how you can convince them to vote democrat. A healthy debate is not a one which you say something and everyone go Horay. It is when opposite opinions are presented and you can judge them by logic and rational thinking.

By the way, despite current myDD map, the chances of Obama wining is still 50% which means election is a toss up. Despite Obama's money making advantage he and DNC are behind McCain and RNC as of last month in cash in hand. The best way to win the election would be to win the votes of people like me and by banning up from the blog I don't see that is happening.

by navid on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bye (none / 0)

So that make you any different form the George bush sycophants, how?

That is the same behavior that they have exhibited for the past 8 years. Stick their fingers in their little ears and yell, "blah, blah, blah... I can't hear you".

I have voted for Democrats since 1970 and every Democratic presidential candidate since 1972. I have never missed one election, even dog catcher. I simply will never vote for Obama.

There are other Democrats that need electing this year, by the way.

So if you have the power to ban me from MYDD, then please do. This would not be a blog I would be interested in reading after that.

by wblynch on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will McCain ride racism to the presidency? wi (2.00 / 4)

Anyone using the empty suit meme just screams troll to me. Or perhaps you just don't bother finding anything out about candidates. Well, your loss.

by interestedbystander on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:52:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will McCain ride racism to the presidency? wi (none / 0)

Ok so I am a troll. Do you want my vote or not. If you want you might want to start debating civilized

by navid on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will McCain ride racism to the presidency? wi (2.00 / 1)

Do I want your vote? I'm not a candidate - please don't be foolish enough to base your vote on a perceived slight from someone the intertubes. And as for being civilised, well, I'm not the one that accused a candidate of being an empty suit that's done nothing for the country. I guess what I'm saying is, you started it.

by interestedbystander on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will McCain ride racism to the presidency? wi (none / 0)

You see you don't even know the meaning of civilized debate.

I too call Obama empty suite and I mean it. In my view the expression describe him perfectly. Someone who appears to be something but lack the substance. I am describing his character but I am not sabotaging him. If you read my previous comments you can see how he can change my mind about his substance and convince me to vote for him.

On the other hand when you use the world troll your only reason is to sabotage character, nothing else. Now I let the others decide which way is the civilized way.

by navid on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

racism (2.00 / 2)

Yes, racism will help McCain, although some racists will vote for Obama. But conflating anti-Obama with racism is stupid in the general and deeply divisive in the primary. And the repeated accusations of racism in this thread do more to hurt Obama than to help. It may be helpful to consider Obama's response to Father Pfleger's sermon:

As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that that unites us. That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause

When you accuse people of racism or "white entitlement" you are using divisive and backward-looking rhetoric. You are looking to divide us rather than help us come together.

by souvarine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM EST

but racism is real (2.00 / 1)

"When you accuse people of racism or "white entitlement" you are using divisive and backward-looking rhetoric."

then what do we do when white people use openly racist arguments and rhetoric?
seriously, i would VERY much like you to address this question. racism exists, how do we fight it if we aren't allowed to mention it?

this idea that "racism isn't the problem, people trying to stop racism is the problem" is perverse, and is EXACTLY what the ReThugs believe.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:38:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but racism is real (2.00 / 1)

I don't see anyone here saying racism isn't real. If you want to help Obama win, despite the racism that exists in this country, then you should not accuse people who are against Obama of racism. That only alienates people who you may be able to win over.

It may be that you believe racism is the most important issue in this country, and that addressing racism is more important that electing Barack Obama as president. But even in that case accusing everyone who disagrees with you of racism does more harm to your cause than good.

by souvarine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:53:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

diary NEVER said Clinton support = racism (none / 0)

it is an OUTRIGHT LIE to insinuate i said all Clinton supporters were racist.

to quote from the diary:

"The wholesale denial of sexism from some of Obama's supporters was a hideous betrayal of progressive values. Likewise, the complete denial of racism, and even open embrace of it from SOME Clinton supporters was at odds with decades of Democratic priorities and values.

i'll accept your apology, if you're honest enough to offer one.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: diary NEVER said Clinton support = racism (1.50 / 2)

I insinuated no such thing. I said "conflating anti-Obama with racism is stupid in the general and deeply divisive in the primary." There are plenty of Clinton supporters who also support Obama.

Your diary is a call for Democrats not to join "the racist anti-Obama movement." That is a divisive straw man. You have posted "i wondered how long before the OPENLY racist people would show up, now they're here." So you wrote this diary to do what, exactly?

Your purpose here is clear to me now. You have written this diary to sow division and indulge in self-righteousness. Your purpose here is not to help Democrats or Obama, or even to fight racism or sexism. Your purpose is self-gratification.

You do nothing but damage to the causes you claim to support.

by souvarine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How many times can you blame racism? (2.00 / 2)

By trying to paint Hillary Clinton as a racist, when clearly the Clintons have worked on behalf of the AA community for years, IMO the Obama supporters and media (although sometimes one and the same) made a serious error. Now when they use these same charges against McCain and the RNC, alot of people just won't want to hear it. Remember the tale of the boy who cried wolf - nobody believed him when the wolf really showed up at the end of the story.

by AnnC on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:08:37 PM EST

Re: Will McCain ride racism to the presidency? wi (2.00 / 1)

No one's 'painting Hillary as a racist', or even saying all Clinton voters are racists, please stop with the straw men!
If discussing racism makes someone uncomfortable, fine, move on, but to attempt quashing discussion with overstated arguments and accusations is as ridiculous as it is dishonest.
Killing the messenger doesn't kill the message, America has a HUGE problem with race, on both sides.
Punishing people who bring it up helps no one!

* Hums Mr. Rogers theme *

by Maori on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST

Re: Will McCain ride racism to the presidency? wi (none / 0)

Oh but you are wrong. Many, many people are painting her and us in that manner.

It may not be you, but there are plenty.

by wblynch on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:13:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think that your basic premise (none / 0)

of this diary is that any Democrat, or anybody else, that doesn't vote for Obama is a racist? Is it?

by georgiapeach on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:55:41 PM EST

of course not (none / 0)

if that's seriously what you get from this diary you need to take some classes in reading comprehension.

the inarguable point of the diary is that a hell of a lot of racists are attacking Obama, and non-racist Clinton supporters should attack the racists.

Clinton supporters can fight racism without agreeing all Obama-hate is racist. and Obama supporters can fight sexism without agreeing all Clinton-hate is sexist.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:31 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.