Despite Barack Obama’s attempt to transcend race, apparently, he’s got a long way to go. Yesterday, he rolled to an easy win in Mississippi, which has one of the highest populations of African Americans in the United States. 9 out of 10 black voters supported Obama, rekindling the ever-volatile suggestion that race is, indeed, alive and well.
Is it “racism” to vote for someone based entirely on their skin color? Or gender? Hmm. The question has suddenly taken on uncomfortable proportions.
Former Vice Presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro’s recent comments have dovetailed nicely with the racially slanted Mississippian voting record, to create a perfect storm of sorts. Ferraro’s comments, which were published last week, have only recently received attention. So much so that yesterday, Obama himself called for Ferroro’s “censure.” Seems the “protectors” of Free Speech have suddenly found someone who needs corked. But what, pray tell, could be so serious as to turn one Dem against another? Why, racism.
Here’s what she said that’s got so many knickers twisted:
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
The inference is obvious: Obama’s ethnicity is getting him votes. And if Mississippi is any indication, Ferraro might be right.
Policy-wise, Obama isn’t much different from John Edwards. In fact, he brings very little political experience to the table, much less world-wisdom (heck, I am older than the Illinois Senator!), and he has no outstanding achievements to his credit, unless you call being ranked as the Most Liberal Senator in 2007 an accomplishment. So what’s Obama’s appeal? Could it be *gasp* his race?
Either way, it’s created an interesting irony for Democrats. The Party has long supported affirmative action, but now that they’ve got two “minorities” in the mix, they’re in a quandary. (Republicans never have this problem because they always nominate old white men.) So which minority is most worthy of the nomination? But that’s the wrong question to ask because affirmative action imparts merits based, NOT ON SOMEONE’S QUALIFICATIONS, but on their gender or ethnicity. Which leaves liberals
to ask this question: Who do we most need in office right now, a White Woman or Black Man — with the emphasis on woman and black (see how fun this quota crap is!).
But let’s think this through: We’re supposed to support legislation that awards merit based upon race, and yet when we ask if race played a role in someone’s success, we’re called racists. I don’t get it. All Ferraro has done is pointed out the obvious: Obama’s ethnicity is helping his candidacy.
Watching the Dems battle the monster they’ve made is quite amusing. My only regret is that Geraldine won’t get raked over the coals the way a Republican would have been. (And, by the way, I’m not voting for McCain because he’s a White Man, but because he’s got jowls. . .)
“(see how fun this quota crap is!)”
Yep! And especially when you’re writing it!
Also interesting to note that the Dems are the ones calling Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas “Uncle Toms”.
Surprise – I disagree. Yes, Obama is getting 90- percent of the black vote. But so did Kerry, Gore, and Clinton and they’re all white. Of course, you could argue that if he wasn’t black he wouldn’t get 90 percent in the dem primary.
BBBUUUTTTT, blacks are only 12 percent of the population. Obama has won majority white states such as Minnesota (2% black), Wisconsin (5% black), etc. Mississippi on the other hand is 36% black, but its population is only about 3 million. Point is – he probably got more white votes in one of the big states that he lost (New York) than all of the black votes he’s gotten in all other states combined.
He is also getting more white male votes than Hilary.
It’s his populist tone and personality that’s getting him votes, not his race. When Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ran, they didn’t even come close to achieving what Obama has.
Why? Not because it was the wrong time. It’s because of their divisive tone and personalities. Obama is a likeable, optimistic, positive, guy. People of all races are drawn to that.
Twenty years under a “pastor” he calls his mentor who is as divisive and racist as any leader, black or white, has ever been.
Dayle, sure there’s other factors involved in Obama’s success. But the fact that BETWEEN TWO DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES Obabma is garnering the black vote is what’s in question. You may dispute the assertion, but I’m not the only one making it. For instance, THIS ARTICLE, which was front page in yesterday’s L.A. Times, shows the scope of the divide between blacks W/IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
I say it’s a no-brainer. Some Christians will vote for candidates simply because the candidates are Christians. Some women will vote for a woman just because she’s a woman. And some blacks will vote for a black, just because he’s a black. While Obama’s “populist tone and personality” may be what’s getting him some votes, I don’t know how you can confidently say his race his isn’t.
Part of the Obama attraction is who he’s not. He’s not Hillary — and to a lot of people who believe the Republicans cannot win this time, that’s very attractive indeed.
Your assertion was that Obama wouldn’t be where he was if he wasn’t black. And, as I’ve clearly shown, the black vote is not enough to put him where he is.
Yes, he’s getting 90 percent of the black vote. But if that’s all you get, you’re on par with Ron Paul’s 3-15 percent of the vote. In the states with only 2 % black population (that he’s won), the black vote can’t carry him to victory. It’s the white vote that’s doing that.
Even if Obama and Hilary split the black vote 50/50, he’d still be, at worst, tied with her – not out of the race.
No, Dayle. Obama’s not where’s he’s at because he’s getting most of the black votes, but because his ethnicity makes him more attractive — to both blacks and liberals. The word “Change” is being used not just to represent “policy change,” but “ethnic change.” And as I’ve pointed out, the Dems are so driven by an “affirmative action” mentality, Obama’s ethnicity is a huge plus (which is Ferraro’s point). Nominating someone who favors abortion rights, withdrawal from Iraq, raising taxes, government-subsidized health care, is eloquent, educated and black, is a liberal’s dream come true.