If you have "no place to go," come here!

"Progressive" BooMan: Clinton voters are racists

Thanks for your insight:

But I don't really have a feel for the [PA] Southwest and the Northeast.

But wait. Yes he does!

If Clinton is really carrying 70% there then there is a level of racial resistance to his campaign that I had feared but hoped would not materialize.

I mean, what other reason could there be not to vote for Obama?MR SUBLIMINAL Universal Health Care, privatizing Social Security advisors, Unity Pony on back order....

But what would I know? I support Clinton, so I'm a racist.

NOTE To clarify, I'm not denying that there's a racial component to voting, just as nobody would deny that there's a misogynistic component to voting, for anyone; I mean, that's what Paul Lukasiak has been crunching the numbers about. But to leap to that as the first explanation, with, admittedly, no "feel" .... That goes down sideways.

No votes yet


myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Gee, all these years of being opposed to (and embarrassed by) the KKK and other hate groups, and it turns out I'm just like them.

I guess I should go burn some crosses or something.


"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

Booman comes from a campaign that made hate and race baiting an art form; i.e. Booman supports racists. Of course, he believes that whole the world is racist like himself.

ggggchapelhill's picture
Submitted by ggggchapelhill on

Doesn't that mean that there is a level of "racial resistance" from AA voters in the southeast towards voting for a white candidate? oh, I forgot obama supporters are "post racial" people. Maybe it will happen to me someday....

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I'm finding it harder and harder to want to ever work with these folks again.

Decal's picture
Submitted by Decal on

The Creative Class never seem to follow up on the logical conclusions to their brilliant "insights". If the huge "level of racial resistance" Booman fears among his fellow Democrats really exists, then doesn't it follow that Obama is in fact completely unelectable?

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

that we're not really racist, we just think we are, and we will be enlightened by The Precious.

Isn't that something similar to what Michelle Obama said, about him coming to enlighten us?

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Because if you follow the "they're all racist" logic, then where does that leave Obama? Unless they're suggesting that white Republicans and independents will be less racists than those awful white democrats? Which is hard to believe.

So what they're saying is that Obama can't clinch the nomination outright because he's essentially unelectable but we should give him the nomination anyway because he's so electable he's going to expand the electoral map. My head hurts.

Of course, their theory doesn't explain why Doug Wilder did better in Appalachian Virginia than John Kerry. Or acknowledge that Bill Clinton did better in rural Ohio than Kerry or Gore. But that would require looking at more than Obama's skin color - looking at the policies he's advocating and how he's advocating them. And that would mean acknowledging Obama isn't some great liberal leader, he's a center left politician who has run to the right of Hillary Clinton on healthcare and other domestic policies.

And I don't care what the blogs say, Obama has set records on spending in Pennsylvania, he's done a bus tour, he's done a train tour, he's ran negative ads, and he's had the media blaring 24/7 that he's the inevitable nominee and Hillary can't win, he needs a WIN tomorrow. And his fan base are scared that he won't get one and so the excuses and spinning are starting already. My personal favorite is that he wins so long as he only loses by single digits. I love that, I can hear Obama pitching the automatic delegates now, "we've shown an ability to close in big states so that we only lose them by single digits no matter how much money we spend and we believe we'll be able to do the same thing in the GE."

And for the record, I think Obama could win in November, but that he's a harder sell than Clinton. While I do think his race puts him at a disadvantage (same as Clinton's sex), I think the real problem is that he's an unknown who can be more easily smeared, he's not particularly good at playing defense, and that he's run a personality-based campaign against a GOP candidate who is the epitome of turning biography into political assets. I think Hillary's policy-based campaign makes her better able to withstand the character attacks because she isn't running nearly as much on who she is as what she'll do.

Becki Jayne's picture
Submitted by Becki Jayne on

I'v already determined that if Barry gets the nomination, then I will vote Green. I'm not voting for a homophobe. End of story. But I won't stay home 'cause there are down ticket races to consider.

Guess who the likely Green Party candidate is? An African American woman we all know, Cynthia McKinney.

But hey! I'm a racist for supporting Hillary over Obama.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

that Obama "could win in November, but that he's a harder sell" just as you do.

I've become convinced that he is unelectable due to his high negatives, all of which are self-inflicted.

The racists weren't voting for our candidate anyhow.

I will still vote for the Democratic nominee in November, no matter who it is.

"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

AP via SF Chron:

(04-21) 09:23 PDT Scranton, Pa. (AP) --

Barack Obama predicted Monday that Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton would get the critical victory she needs in Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, but said his goal is to keep it close.

"I'm not predicting a win," he told Pittsburgh radio station KDKA. "I'm predicting it's going to be close and that we are going to do a lot better than people expect."

Clinton aides tried to downplay expectations, insisting they would be grateful for a single-digit win.

In other breaking news, Clinton demonstrates an ability to reach across the cultural divide and lay to rest those pesky divisions of the 90’s, not by compromise but by persuading her opponents that she’s right:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed Sunday by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, whose owner and publisher, billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, personally funded many of the investigations that led to President Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

It was one of a handful of endorsements the New York senator has received from Pennsylvania newspapers before the state's primary Tuesday. Most of the state's major papers have endorsed Barack Obama.

In its endorsement, Tribune-Review editors said Obama is too inexperienced to be president and that his recent comments about bitter voters living in small towns showed a lack of respect for middle-class values.

"In sharp contrast, Clinton is far more experienced in government — as an engaged first lady to a governor and a president, as a second-term senator in her own right," the paper said. "She has a real voting record on key issues. Agree with her or not, you at least know where she stands instead of being forced to wonder."

Clinton met with the Tribune-Review's editorial board, including Scaife, last month. Afterward, Scaife wrote an editorial titled "Hillary, Reassessed," declaring how impressed he had been by the former first lady.

"Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her," Scaife wrote.

There's a turnabout nobody could have predicted. That Hillary Clinton can get Scaife to not just accept but endorse her suggests the chances of her taking the general election are significantly better than current polls and conventional wisdom predict.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

"thrills up their leg" coverage by the media. He's not running any stronger than Hillary is against Mac and he's been getting the kissy-face treatment. There are more tools that the MSM has been able to use with Obama as Hillary's opponent (e.g. racism) than there will be with McCain as her opponent.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

he's had media love and a far bigger budget and far more ads, etc, but still can't win any big states besides his home state.

This really is sad--and all Obama's doing--when Jesse ran, his supporters never spoke like this about people who supported other candidates. The fish rots from the head.

Submitted by lambert on

The remarkable thing is that Obama's doing it personally, instead of having it done through surrogates.

Can't lose, really. If Hillary loses, it's despite what Obama said (he's just cast himself in the role of Truman -- and energized his troops). If Hillary wins, and in anything less than double digit amounts, she should quit the race immediately.

It's a win-win situation.

So, personally, I think it means that according to his own internals, he's closing. Of course, anything else would be remarkable, given the money imbalance, but that won't be the story.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

There’s a turnabout nobody could have predicted. That Hillary Clinton can get Scaife to not just accept but endorse her suggests the chances of her taking the general election are significantly better than current polls and conventional wisdom predict.

that really is the key.

I mean, Obama is going to face "resistance from white voters" -- that is a given. That resistance can be overcome however.

When Clinton began her run for Senate, there was a hell of a lot of resistance to her among voters in "upstate" New York -- but she was able to overcome that resistance, and received a lot more support in those areas on election day than she started with.

But Obama isn't breaking through the resistance to him -- as far as white Democrats are concerned, its not that they WON'T vote for him, its that they need to be convinced that he deserves their vote.

Hillary sat down and talked to often hostile groups of people and won them over during her Senate campaign. Her "Listening Tour" worked, because she really was listening. She recognized she had a problem, and she 'fixed' it.

Obama sees his anemic support among working/middle class whites as a symptom of their problem, not his. And that is Obama's real problem.

iamcoyote's picture
Submitted by iamcoyote on

I've noticed that a lot of Hillary bashers use her wooing of Scaife as a reason she's teh evil because she hangs around with bad guys, yet the reason Scaife was a "bad guy" is because he spent all that money and time going after the Clintons. So, is he the bad guy because he's endorsing her now? Is it too much to ask for some logic here?

kc's picture
Submitted by kc on like 'My comments don't matter because I must be a racist.' Great way to discount/shut up the opposition, but isn't that his mo ?

Just read on TL that Hillary will be on Countdown tonight and then Larry King. Sort of like visiting thyroid patients--the over and then the under.

iamcoyote's picture
Submitted by iamcoyote on

Yeah, BIO, I know you're right. Keeping score is impossible in Calvinball.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on --

"Controlled excitement is building inside of Clinton's inner circle as closely guarded internal polling shows the former first lady with an 11-point lead in Pennsylvania!

Clinton is polling near to nearly 2 to 1 over Obama in many regions of the state, a top insider explained to the DRUDGE REPORT.

(i bet Obama's internal polling shows him collapsing)

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

is like house-shopping with Rezko; nothing good can come from it.

Drudge is a liar, a manipulator and a jerk. His claims for his sources too often turn out to be in error or deliberately false; there is no way to believe him anymore. Everything he puts out serves an agenda, but there is never any way to tell in the first moments exactly what his agenda might be.

Are the poll numbers really from inside the Clinton campaign, or just made up? Who knows?

What the average poll results are showing is a 6 - 8 point statewide popular vote difference +/- not much. By raising expectations of a "double-digit" win, Drudge sets the bar for Clinton to be portrayed as a failure if she only reaches 9.99%.

Playing with Drudge only encourages him. Now go wash your hands, and use some soap.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and Penn is still polling for her, no?

There are no presidential campaigns that forgo them. You have to be able to budget and decide where resources go, etc, and internal polling helps with that.

There was talk a while ago about how her campaign had been cultivating Drudge to get better coverage--like with Scaife and Murdoch.

of course he has an agenda--but raising expectations for her helps it, i think. The bar is being set enormously high for her--which is not good for her. Meanwhile, Obama has Bush expectations--if he doesn't drool, he wins.

Submitted by lambert on

Obama thinks he's closing. Now he's managing expectations so he does better than expected. That's all this is. Of course Drudge is lying, but now it's "out there."

UPDATE They could both be lying, naturally. Yes, it makes sense that they do polls; OTOH, Drudge could still be making shit up.

i>[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

They run it through Drudge for plausible deniability.

"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that they didn't go all out -- like they've done in other states--It's been in the news over and over how many ads he put up and how much more money he's spent, and the bus and train tours, other states, his efforts weren't reported.

lilburro's picture
Submitted by lilburro on

makes everyone lose faith in whomever the a**hole is supporting. If you don't know PA (or aren't willing to learn), don't talk about PA. Simple. Now that people are swarming with lofty predictions and projections all over my home state, I think I know what other typical early primary state citizens must feel - resentment and annoyance. At least people aren't making fools out of themselves carting camera crews into barbershops, like they did in SC.

I think after the votes are tallied up (or even now, since we've had so many primaries) we have to ask better questions about the demographic breakdown in the primary race so far. Are there really millions of white straight up racists in this election? Is that really what we want to think? Or are there more substantive issues in the way Obama relates to the electorate? I think Obama often (not always) losing the white vote seems more significant because he wins the black vote by such staggering margins. Simply huge margins. Statistically AA voters are lining up behind Obama. But if you think about it, they are one of the few groups that do. There are better explanations for what is going on in the primary than shouting racism against, as Booman says above, people you don't even know.

Such pundits should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr.Murder's picture
Submitted by Mr.Murder on

...if 70% of whites voting for Hillary makes them racists,

80% of blacks voting for Obama makes them...

You can't travel that road.

The real reason Boo Man is using these talking points is because Obama has used them.

When he campaigns states he thinks the black vote is sizable enough, he resurrects race based talking points.

See also South Carolina.

It's worked well for him, in those states. Some of us said correctly he'd be doing this directly after Pennsylvania. Turns out, he's seen the polls and knows he best campaign this way for North Carolina now. Which he's done, when he's appeared there, he made several campaign visits there this past week, and the talking points emerged once more.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

…if 70% of whites voting for Hillary makes them racists,

80% of blacks voting for Obama makes them…

You can’t travel that road.

80% of blacks voting for a black man because he is black is not racism. And I mean that quite seriously.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

voting for white people, racist.

I don't agree that either of those things are racist. But a lot of "progressives" want us to believe that one is absolutely true, and if you are going to say one is true, then both are true.

That is the stupid argument that is being made.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Submitted by lambert on

... is that racism really is an ism, a system or structure of social relations, and although it persist and reproduces itself within the human heart and mind, it is not solely a matter of individual feelings ("being a bad person").

But the argument by the OFB is a pretty vulgar version of that high level take -- "Basically, "Not voting for Obama? You're a racist." And turn about would be fair play too: "Not voting for Hillary? You're a sexist." In reality, I can see cases where both statements would be true, and many other cases where both statements would be false.

And may I suggest that if ending racism were indeed the heart of what Obama's campaign is all about, then we'd be seeing some followup on his speech about Wright, instead of a barrage of negative campaigning. Instead, Obama dropped the whole national conversation about race thing like a hot potato as soon as the issue of Wright, as a gotcha, was behind him. The lack of follow-through translates to me, at best, as "not ready."

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.