Since when do progressives placate racists?
A few weeks ago there was a diary, "I would never vote for a woman or a n****r". (It was on the rec list - why, I'm not sure - because it was a concern troll diary.) DHinMI later wrote, How Kentucky, West Virginia and Racism Could Screw Up the Clinton Exit - and in that post he quoted a piece from The New Yorker, The Race in Eastern Kentucky. There were countless diaries about how "racists" in Indiana and North Carolina would tighten the races there - how Obama would get trounced in Indiana due to racism...how white people in North Carolina simply would not vote for the black candidate. There were countless anecdotal stories about how white people would vote for John McCain in November rather than Barack Obama. A lot of those assumptions didn't pan out in reality - interestingly enough.
Hillary Clinton herself has said that Obama can't win in November:
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Governer Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor's endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."
Why?
Well, we learned her reasoning the other day - and it wasn't pretty:
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
In other words - only white people who haven't completed college are actually hard-working Americans - and only Hillary Clinton can win those votes.
Even though that's pretty much not true - given that Obama won those white voters in Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Georgia, and several other states...Hillary is going to play that card anyway. Why? Who knows why. Maybe she thinks she can force the super delegates to force Obama to make her VP?
Frankly, I don't really care why. She's race-baiting. This isn't the first time during the campaign that she or one of her surrogates has played the race card. Of course, Clinton supporters will tell us that it's Obama that has played the race card. Apparently only non-white people can play the race card.
What I'm disgusted with - so disgusted that I just had to rant and get this out - is the fact that there are bloggers who claim to be Democrats, who claim to be "progressive" or "liberal" who have been and who are still placating racists.
Today over at MyDD - Jerome talks about the VP choices. His analysis is likely wrong, in my opinion...there haven't been too many moments where I've found Jerome to be "right" this primary season - his delegate counts have even been off, but that's besides the point. My problem isn't that he's wrong - my problem is his little note that suggests we should concern ourselves with the opinion of racists in November:
Gov Richardson, from New Mexico. This is the one that makes some sense. Obama's only regional strength at the moment, in regards to the '00 and '04 maps, is in the southwest. NV, NM, and CO. Richardson could help some in those states, theoretically. But this ticket of racial change is going to make those white battleground states of PA and OH even more problematic for Obama.
Here's my response - who gives a fuck about those racists?
Honestly - I don't care if people in PA and OH are so racist that they won't vote for Obama. We'll just have to find votes for Obama elsewhere...and we will. But you know what, I don't even believe that to be true in the first place. Sure - there are voters out there who are so racist they won't vote for a black candidate. You know what they deserve? 100 more years of war with John McCain. 4 more years of Bush-like policies. If they can't look past their own racist bullshit to vote for the better candidate - hand them an army sign-up form - because we're going to need THEIR boots on the ground in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and wherever else John McCain decides to send troops.
Big Tent Democrat notes that Hillary says Kentucky counts:
Clinton herself noted she was the only candidate to come, saying it was important "because Kentucky always picks the president." She later said, as she did in West Virginia earlier this week, that Democrats "for too long" have let states like this one "slip out of the Democratic column."
"Too many people felt our party didn’t speak to their values and concerns," she said. "Well I believe if you don’t stand for hard-working middle-class Americans you don’t stand for much. And it’s now up to the Democratic Party and our eventual nominee to make that case."
BTD's snide remark? His personal note to add on to Clinton's words?
I am sure Robinson, Herbert and Company are outraged.
Those would be the columnists who called Clinton on her "hard-working Americans, white people" comments. The ones teacherken wrote about here and here.
You know what, if they aren't outraged, they should be. What kind of comment is this?
"Too many people felt our party didn’t speak to their values and concerns,"
What values and concerns would those be? Are we going back to the Kentucky voter who said this:
"East of Lexington she’ll carry seventy per cent of the primary vote," he said. Kentucky votes on May 20. "She could win the general election in Kentucky." I asked about Obama. "Obama couldn’t win."
Why not?
"Race," Patrick said matter-of-factly. "I’ve talked to people—a woman who was chair of county elections last year, she said she wouldn’t vote for a black man." Patrick said he wouldn’t vote for Obama either.
Why not?
"Race. I really don’t want an African-American as President. Race."
What about race?
"I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That’s my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did." He meant that it went Republican. "Now what caused that? Race. There’s a lot of white people that just wouldn’t vote for a colored person. Especially older people. They know what happened in the sixties. Under thirty—they don’t remember. I do. I was here."
DHinMI talks about Obama's problems in Appalachia far better than I do, so I won't get into it, but I will copy for you what I feel is the most important part of his diary:
Most of the white voters voting for Hillary Clinton will enthusiastically vote for him in the fall. A good chunk of the Clinton vote is women, and there's little to suggest that they would shift from her to McCain instead of voting for the Democratic candidate, as women have been doing for decades. No, Obama doesn't have a racial problem.
It appears that Appalachia has an Obama problem.
If doing well in Appalachia—which has only about 18-20 million of the almost 300 million people who live in America—were necessary for an Obama win, he would be in deep trouble. But there aren't enough people in Appalachia to present a big problem, especially since the region makes up a relatively small part of the population of most of the states it touches.
We will win in November. We will win because Obama is the best candidate. We will win because Obama has better judgment than McCain. We will win because the majority of Americans do not want another four years of George W. Bush's policies. We will win because young people will come out to vote in droves - as they have been - for Obama. We will win because women will vote Obama. We will win because Obama wins white men. We will win because African Americans will support Obama. And we will win because Latinos will support Obama.
I'm not worried about winning in November. We'll work hard and we'll win. We'll do that because we have to. And the guy who is quoted in the article above, and those people who think like him? Well, I reject them. If he is willing to put his racism above the future of our country, then he deserves what he gets as a result.
Is that mean of me?
I don't care if it is mean - because you will not catch me giving excuses to racists or sexists or anyone else who eliminates a candidate based solely on discrimination. You won't catch me saying that we shouldn't nominate a Jewish candidate because "Christians won't vote for one", or that we shouldn't nominate a Latino because "White people won't vote for Latinos", or that we shouldn't nominate a woman because "people won't vote for a woman to be President".
Racism is intolerable and I'll be sending that message to any single person who wants to tell me they won't be voting for Barack Obama because he's black. I'll also be more than prepared to tell them the first place they can go after election day - goarmy.com - because we'll need a lot of soldiers for all of McCain's wars.