Clinton: "Hard-working Americans. White Americans."

Clinton:

“There was just an AP article posted 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.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.



Yes, there is a pattern emerging.

Elrod:

[…] The implication is, of course, that hard-working goes hand-in-hand with white. Never mind that Obama has won hard-working black Americans, or that he’s won whites everywhere outside the South and the Rust Belt.

The “hard-working Americans, white Americans” is a classic Wallace/Helms/Buchanan equation of whiteness with hard work and honesty. The opposite is either effete white intellectuals who don’t work, or lazy blacks who also don’t work. In fact, the Reagan coalition GOP even dropped the word “white,” knowing that “hard-working” and “law-abiding” already implied, in their minds, white people.

I don’t think Hillary Clinton really believes that only white people are hard-working. But she has to know that such phrasing is downright toxic given the racially polarized electorate in the primary.

Jack and Jill Politics:

Hard-working Americans = white Americans. Right. The rest of us sit on our porches eating watermelon and plucking banjos.

For some reason, despite this “broader base” Clinton still seems to be having trouble raising money, and you know, getting more votes than her opponent. But at this point any abstract metric besides votes or delegates that Clinton can use as a rationale for her candidacy becomes the only appropriate one to use.

This kind of comment is less a description than an agitator, it’s meant to give white voters the impression that they would be “disenfranchised” by an Obama win. It’s a not so subtle effort to evoke racial resentment over Obama’s success. […]

J&JP also points out that neither Clinton nor Obama will win a majority of the white vote in November (the majority of whites have always gone to Republicans, in recent decades). What matters isn’t who gets the majority of whites, but who gets the majority of voters.

Pam at Pandagon:

The frame is specific — that’s why Clinton referred to hard working white Americans. What happened to “blue collar Americans?” Oh wait, there are a lot of hard working black and brown blue collar/working class Americans, and many of them they voted for Obama, so she had to slice that demo down to the bottom line. Dog whistles no more.

I want to believe that it wasn’t a purposeful slip of the tongue because it’s too painful to contemplate that the black vote is now perceived as a “problem” because it skews to Obama, and because there are more white voters who have a problem with him based on his race, we have to nail that demo.

Remember, the black vote has been the most reliable Democratic vote, not the Reagan Democrats. Black voters don’t turn out for Obama solely because he is black. I’ve blogged before about this bizarre train of thought — if the affinity vote is so powerful we would have seen a bum rush for Alan Keyes. What Clinton is saying is not inaccurate (polls slice and dice this way), but its use here is inappropriate and inflammatory.

In Matthew Yglesias’ comments, Brendan writes:

The point isn’t that she’s calling non-whites lazy–I didn’t read it that way at all–but that she’s suggesting white votes should carry more weight than black votes in choosing the nominee. That is a blatantly racist claim, no matter the ostensible rationale behind it.

Steve Benen:

Let’s put aside the unfortunate wording of Clinton’s statement in which she equated “hard-working” with “white,” and consider the merits of her broader point.

Clinton has done well with white “hard-working” Americans, especially in states like Pennsylvania. But her argument is premised on the notion that White Joe Six Pack who votes in a Democratic primary would rather support a Republican than Obama. Where’s the proof to bolster this claim? There isn’t any.

By the logic of Clinton’s argument, we should also note that her support among African Americans is quite poor, and the “pattern” is pretty clear. Are we to assume that if she were the nominee, those same voters would back McCain over her? That Clinton couldn’t possibly win because she’d never get the support of African-American Dems? Of course not.

Why, then, characterize the race in this illogical, race-based way?

The Politico’s Ben Smith:

Now, the press has talked about the race in these terms constantly, so I won’t feign shock. But it’s a bit strange to hear it so bluntly from the candidate’s mouth, and probably not a great way to endear herself to African-American voter.

And it’s also noteworthy that the blunt talk on appealing to whites surfaces the day after the last round of primaries in which there’s a substantial number of black voters.

More blogging on this: Stereohyped, All About Race, The Angry Black Woman, Comments From Left Field, Jeff at Blog Of The Moderate Left (but unless I missed it, not cross-posted to Shakesville), Fables of the Reconstruction, The Roland Report. The American Street.

This entry posted in Elections and politics, Race, racism and related issues. Bookmark the permalink. 

90 Responses to Clinton: "Hard-working Americans. White Americans."

  1. 1
    Jim says:

    I wonder if it really had to turn out this way, if from the beginning the Clintons were so cynical and tactical in their approach. I think there’s enough evidence from the Clinton presidency that they were, and it was all in plain view.

    If I were a white voter in those states, I’d be pretty insulted by their assumptions, unless they happened to be right about me.

  2. 2
    BananaDanna says:

    Oh, s***.

  3. Pingback: Whitey Says “Wink” « mooreroom

  4. 3
    Radfem says:

    This has been office talk this week as in other weeks and written and discussed on many online blogs. The only “working-class” people who count as “hard-working” are apparently White. But this wording has been used by other candidates in other elections.

    But Clinton’s running a campaign that for the most part has been implemented by White male Republicans.

    It’s crap like this that makes me question feminists wilingness to dismantle patriarchy or simply change who’s in charge of it and why “patriarchy” itself is a problematic term for many women.

    Sudy’s blogging on accepting kyriarchy not apologies

  5. 4
    Bjartmarr says:

    I’m really tired of all the sound-biting in this campaign. Of the folks who are disturbed by this, how many of them listened to Clinton’s entire speech before forming an opinion? And how many saw the words “Hard working Americans. White Americans.” and formed their opinions then?

    Here’s my best attempt to transcribe what Clinton actually said:

    Well, Kathy you know there was just an AP article posted, uhh, that … found how … Senator Obama’s …uh… support…among, um…, working…uh hard working americans, uh, white americans, is, um…weakening again, uhh and how, uhh … the … whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me and, in independents, umm, I was running even with him, and…doing even better with Democratic-leaning independents. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.

    So, comparing that with what was posted in this article: first her sentence was shortened, over-emphasizing the part where she mentioned white Americans. Second, by listening to her, it’s obvious that she’s speaking off the cuff — but when she’s quoted, she sounds like she’s speaking clearly and confidently, with well-considered remarks that perhaps came off a script. Finally, there’s the part about “a pattern emerging here” — which perhaps she said later, but she clearly did not say it right after the “white Americans” remark. Not to mention the title of the article, where “um…, working…uh hard working americans, uh, white Americans, is…” becomes “Hard-working Americans. White Americans”. Transcribers should at least put in the comma that she said, not the period that she didn’t.

    So why is this important? Well, in order to get elected, we require our politicians to stand up and talk for, at a guess, five hours a day. We require them to answer surprise questions, without a script, and come up with answers immediately and off the top of their heads. They have to talk about sensitive issues in a limited-time format. And they have to kiss the American public’s ass at every opportunity, telling us how “hard-working” and “compassionate” and “generous” we are, how our states are “great” and how America is the bestest country that can never do wrong.

    Furthermore, they can’t just come out and be honest when they talk. For example, most Democrats and probably quite a few Republicans believe (correctly) that our government’s corn subsidies are a HORRIBLE policy. But they can’t come out and say that — it would kill their chances of election. They have to hemm and haw around it, refuse to answer questions, perhaps outright lie. The same is true with race issues: does anybody here believe for a second that Obama disagrees that America was founded on racism? But he sure as hell can’t acknowledge that.

    And to top it all off, politicians know that if they say anything that could be misquoted, it will be misquoted. Repeatedly. On national news.

    There’s no question that Clinton put her foot in her mouth. But other than that, this statement seems like a non-event. She was trying to kiss ass while pointing out that white people are voting for her and at the same time worrying about being misquoted while nervously lying about what she thinks her chances are, and she unfortunately juxtaposed the ass-kissing with the nervous lying to inadvertently imply something that we all know she doesn’t believe.

    All the candidates have pulled a whole bunch of crap in this campaign. And when they have deliberately done something despicable, they should be called on it. But pulling their off-the-cuff remarks out of context and subtly twisting their meaning doesn’t do anybody any good.

  6. 5
    Radfem says:

    Hmmm, it’s not just one off-the-cuff statement that’s being misunderstood, it’s like her entire campaign. And if appealing to White Americans as if they’re the only votes that matter is necessary to “win” an election or a nomination, then our country’s in an even sadder state than I thought (and I’m pretty cynical).

  7. 6
    Jim says:

    “Furthermore, they can’t just come out and be honest when they talk.”

    Then we all get what we want – liars. Too bad for us.

    Still, people can see through it, the ones who want to. That is what has cooked her goose here. She can’t really attribute Obama’s success to A-A solidarity and bloc voting, now can she, especially when he didn’t really start to get a following in that community (as electable) until he won in Iowa, specifically because it was a white state. It was an eye-opener and an emotional moment for a lot of people. She is just trying to con us when she claims that he can’t pull white votes. Or maybe it’s just reverse snobbery; the only white votes that count are racist ones. Whatever – who knows with her what she ever really means?

    Bottom line – my ex-wife pegged her 15 years ago as a Scorpio – born liar, toxic insect.

  8. 7
    cola says:

    Bjartmarr,

    I don’t understand what you’re arguing here. Are you saying that Clinton isn’t saying that the white people who are voting for her are more important than the overwhelming majority of Blacks who’ve voted for Obama? Because she’s also made the argument that Black people will just vote for Democrats regardless of who the nominee is and therefor no one should care about their preferences.

    She’s quoted in this Morning Edition story as saying exactly that.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90268409

    I don’t think there’s any charitable way to read what she’s saying here. Even if she’s saying “hard-working white americans” she’s basically just throwing out all the white people who’ve voted for Obama – of which there are tons – as being lazy.

  9. 8
    Sailorman says:

    I thought “hard working” meant “manufacturing-type work” and/or “blue collar” as opposed to the more literal meaning of “not lazy.”

    I.e., as a lawyer, I work hard, and I’m white, and I’m a U.S. citizen by birth. Even so, I strongly suspect I am not considered a Hard-Working White American (TM), whatever that means.

    Clinton is still a fool though: whether or not she meant A or B, she’s supposed to be smart enough to avoid insults. Accidental insults are still insults.

  10. 9
    Joe says:

    From the transcript in No. 5 it really sounds like she meant
    1. Blue Collar workers support me over him.
    2. Whites support me over him.
    3. I do a little better than independents.

    But she can’t be that blunt.

  11. 10
    Kevin Moore says:

    Wait, I thought black workers could be blue collar, too. And hard working. And working class. I mean, last I looked, capitalists seemed to enjoy exploiting the hell out of them, so that’s gotta count for something.

  12. Pingback: Earth to Democrats: Black votes count!

  13. 11
    Karlos says:

    Yes, the blogosphere is abuzz.

    And the following analysis is a little stale, for me at least ’cause I’ve been saying it since, well, Iowa, and friends have heard it ad nausea, but…

    Somewhere in a plane from Iowa to New Hampshire, a plan was hatched. Turn Obama into “the black candidate.”

    Post Iowa: Steinem, with some of the worst foreshadow messages I’ve ever heard, says women are never front-runners, despite AND because he’s black. But the underlying message is still, you guessed it, HE’s BLACK.

    NH: Fairy tale. (He’s Black.)

    SC: Jesse Jackson. (He’s Black. )

    Super Tuesday: I don’t remember. But I bet it was…wait for it…it’s coming…one more second…he’s black!

    …Ferraro… (again, bad foreshadowing…)

    …3 am…

    …Reject and denounce Farrakhan…

    …He wouldn’t be my pastor…

    …you get the picture, right. I don’t have to go on, and I don’t even have to source it. We all know the narrative.

    But Clinton got a little off message with the manufactured obligatory fake outrage over the bitter comment.

    Elitist. Yet, I guess, yes…still black – if only because by now the narrative is completely ingrained in the psyche of the intended audience.

    But that one was tricky and Clinton paid for it…that and the gas tax laugher.

    Now she’s back on message, but not underlying or understated. Out front. In the open.

    And it shouldn’t be a surprise.

  14. 12
    Radfem says:

    You’d think Kevin. At least in terms of many working-class people that I know who support Obama but don’t count because they’re for the most part not White. And it’s not like the White working class people are all gravitating to Hillary. Many White working-class people are voting Republican, at least in inland California but probably the coastal areas as well.

    Her rhetoric just sounds I don’t know…so Republican? Not surprising, for the Democrats these days.

    Because she’s also made the argument that Black people will just vote for Democrats regardless of who the nominee is and therefor no one should care about their preferences.

    But it’s usually that way. This demographic is the one that’s chided the most to go with the program, support the Democratic candidate. And if your votes get tossed out or you can’t vote in certain states without getting threatened with arrest, well still go with the program.

  15. 13
    Robert says:

    As a good Republican, I really should be hoping for a Hillary win. But I just can’t; she’s too toxic, and the risk that she’d get into higher office can’t be born. I’d rather run against her, but I sure as hell hope you guys do the right thing and get Obama in. I have no love for his political stances but I see nothing to indicate that he’s the kind of political creature that the Clintons are. Far, far, far better to have a reasonably honest Obama pushing awful policies (from my pov) than a Clinton, even if her policies are marginally closer to what I’d want to see.

    Kind of a “vote for the crook, it’s important” moment, but in reverse.

    [Oops, sorry, I was thinking this was the open thread on the election – please move if it’s not on-topic.]

  16. 14
    Bjartmarr says:

    Radfem
    Hmmm, it’s not just one off-the-cuff statement that’s being misunderstood, it’s like her entire campaign.

    Fine, so criticize her on her entire campaign. Such a criticism will sway me far more than criticism which relies on subtly manipulating her words and taking them out of context.

    And if appealing to White Americans as if they’re the only votes that matter is necessary to “win” an election or a nomination,

    I’m not sure how you read this out of what she said. I mean, sure, that’s one way to read it. But it seems far more likely that she was trying to point out that her support amongst one particular demographic (whites) is growing.

    In order for Clinton to win this election, she has to make people believe that she can win — both the primary, and the general. About one statement in three that comes out of her mouth contains words to this effect. Now, she could have said, “My support amongst black voters is fading fast.” But that wouldn’t have made it sound like she can win. She has to emphasize the places where she’s not getting clobbered — in this case, white people. Heck, she even pointed out her “broad base” — working white people, white people who hadn’t finished college, and independents. (It’s a weak argument, I’ll grant you. But, at this point, so’s her campaign.)

    I’m also not sure why you put “win” in scare quotes up there. I’m pretty sure that actual winning is what they’re all trying to achieve here.

    cola
    I don’t understand what you’re arguing here.

    I thought I was pretty clear, if perhaps a bit verbose. To summarize:

    (1) If a remark has to be taken out of context and then subtly massaged in order to be offensive, then it’s not news.

    (2) Due to the pressures of the job, candidates are going to put their feet in their mouths on a regular basis. They may, at times, say offensive things. If they inadvertently say things that they obviously don’t mean, then this is again not news.

    A brief comment on the Morning Edition article that you quoted. Clinton indeed said that black people will vote for the Democrat in the general. She did not say that “…therefore no one should care about their preferences”. Those were your words, your interpretation, and it’s neither fair nor accurate to ascribe them to Clinton.

    Perhaps you believe that your interpretation is so obvious that it was clearly what she was trying to say, and that there is no room for doubt, that no reasonable person could possibly think otherwise. But if that were the case, then your audience would be able to figure it out on their own, without you interpreting it for them. So, either way, there’s no need for you to add your interpretation — it’s either inaccurate, or obvious.

  17. 15
    Daran says:

    There was just an AP article posted 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.

    This is a good illustration of how even a verbatim written quote can create a false impression of what a person was intending to say. As written it does indeed convey “[t]he implication … that hard-working goes hand-in-hand with white”.

    When I listen to her, however, I get a different impression. She’s been asked a question for which she doesn’t have a prepared answer. So she duckspeaks for a few seconds, humming and harring as she goes, while she thinks about how to answer it. The phrase “hard-working americans” is precisely the kind of utterance that can be spoken without thought. Then, halfway through the sentence, she decides to make it about Obama’s alleged lack of appeal to white voters. She wasn’t trying to connect whiteness with hard-workingness.

    It was an inept performance, and one which will probably hurt her.

  18. 16
    nojojojo says:

    Bjartmarr and Daran,

    If this had happened in a vacuum, I would excuse it. But as Karlos and Amp have pointed out, this is part of a larger pattern and an apparent strategy to use race as a weapon against Obama. At this point, it doesn’t matter how much she hems and haws or “didn’t mean it” as she says it, any whiff of racist tactics from her will now appear to be part of that strategy. That’s her own damn fault.

    And I’m tired of it. I’ve officially reached the point where I can no longer support Clinton even if she does win the nomination. I was going to vote for her simply to keep McCain out of office, but now AFAIC they’re six of one, half dozen of another. McCain’s likely attack on abortion is equally evil in my eyes as Clinton’s blatant racism. I can’t support either, so I’ll stay home on election day.

  19. 17
    cola says:

    Bjartmarr,

    “A brief comment on the Morning Edition article that you quoted. Clinton indeed said that black people will vote for the Democrat in the general. She did not say that “…therefore no one should care about their preferences”. Those were your words, your interpretation, and it’s neither fair nor accurate to ascribe them to Clinton.”

    How would you parse her statement, then? She’s arguing for becoming the nominee in spite of the fact that she doesn’t have the votes behind her. So her statement here is that since Black people are a reliable base for Democrats, their clear preference should be trumped by the preferences of her white supporters.

    I have to agree with Nojojojo. These statements aren’t isolated. It’s the full picture that’s the problem.

  20. 18
    Richard Aubrey says:

    I must say it’s more than amusing to find dems demonstrating currently what has been their pitch for several decades; pitting various groups against each other while calling republicans racist.
    Hillary is saying the literal truth. Hard-working blacks are going to vote for Obama. So that leaves hard-working whites as another group which is in play. Hard-working blacks are not. There are more hard-working whites in raw numbers than there are hard-working blacks. So getting 90% of the black vote and losing a certain percentage of the hard-working white vote means losing the general election. Winning the general election is supposed to be the goal. Her point is that she’s better placed to do so.
    Hard-working whites may decide not to vote for Obama because of, among other things, his SanFran condescension, his dicey relationships with such things as patriotism (hard-working whites are the military’s prime demographic and have been for a number of wars), and his wife’s apparent belief that she and her hubby have it pretty tough these days.
    Hard-working whites may go for some kind of relief on health care, but both have some kind of plan, fuzzy as they may be at this point.
    Hillary has spoken the truth as a matter of electoral politics and racism isn’t necessarily an ingredient. It might be, but it’s not necessary.

  21. 19
    Dianne says:

    The phrase “hard-working americans” is precisely the kind of utterance that can be spoken without thought. Then, halfway through the sentence, she decides to make it about Obama’s alleged lack of appeal to white voters. She wasn’t trying to connect whiteness with hard-workingness.

    I agree that it is entirely possible that Clinton was not intentionally trying to connect “hard-working Americans” with “white Americans”. However, if she wasn’t that almost makes it worse. She either revealed an implicit association between “hard-working” and “white” or she made a cynical statement designed to appeal to racists. Of the two, I’d almost rather believe that she is a cynic willing to use racism or anything else to further her ends, but without any real belief in the superiority of whites than that she has a true racism that only reveals itself when she is too tired or startled to monitor her speech carefully.

  22. 20
    Daran says:

    She either revealed an implicit association between “hard-working” and “white” or she made a cynical statement designed to appeal to racists.

    Or, she simply changed tack in mid sentence resulting in an unintended and unfortunate juxtaposition.

    BTW, I support Obama on the grounds that he’s the least likely of the three to be a really terrible President, so this isn’t a case of me sticking up for my preferred candidate.

  23. 21
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Dianne.
    She is acknowledging that hard-working blacks will not vote for her, but that hard-working whites may. The dems should be working to get those they can get, which includes hard-working whites. They have the hard-working blacks, no matter what they do, unless they nominate Hillary in which case some of the hard-working blacks may stay home. So they have to calculate: Do we lose more by pissing off a certain number of hard-working blacks and getting more hard-working whites, or the reverse?
    If Obama is the nominee, he gets the hard-working black vote and, she says, not enough of the hard-working white vote to win the GE.
    The 90% support from blacks is the result that speaks to racism, not, say, 60-40 from whites that speaks to racism.
    It is possible to oppose Obama for reasons other than racism and scolding those who do as racists might be satisfying, but it doesn’t make much difference when the scolded get into the voting booth.

  24. 22
    Dianne says:

    BTW, I support Obama on the grounds that he’s the least likely of the three to be a really terrible President, so this isn’t a case of me sticking up for my preferred candidate.

    I thought you were British. Why do you give a flying fig who the US president is?

  25. 23
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Dianne, if the Brit PM is going to the the American president’s lap dog–quote some Brits ref Tony Blair–it would interest them to see what kind of president is going to be holding the leash.
    You will recall the laughable Clark County experiment where Brits wrote to the gun-totin’, cousin-pokin’, snake-handlin’, dentist-avoidin’ white trash of an Ohio county they thought would swing the 04 election.
    They’re interested.
    The US is a supertanker, and supertankers can cause a stir among the bass boats even in a no-wake zone.

  26. 24
    sylphhead says:

    Richard, even disregarding race, this fits in with a pattern of the Clinton campaign dismissing any contest or demographic they lose. There’s a difference between saying that, unfortunately, swing groups are important and that with all due respect this group/that state is not a swing target, and saying that the group/state plain doesn’t matter. You can read a lot from the tone and tenor, and the Clinton campaign’s tone has been that of petulance, spite, and wounded entitlement, exactly what you’d expect from a pack of spineless DLC dittoheads.

    And there’s something disturbing about the assumption that Blacks always vote for the Democrats, so working to close the gap with White voters should be the only concern. You may as well take a certain (reasonably close) gap with White voters as the given, the constant, and the minority vote as the variable. The implication is that only White people are independent enough to think about their votes, while Black people vote reflexively based on identity.

    An argument could be made that Democrats’ margins with Black voters is about as large as it can get (about 80%) and that there’s an element of statistically diminishing returns, versus the more diffuse White vote. There’s three problems with this analysis, however:

    1) While Democrats can’t measurably add much to their AA margins, they can certainly subtract much to it. A Black electorate split of 75-25 means certain defeat for Democrats nationally.

    2) Black voters are still underrepresented from the population as a whole. Increasing the absolute turnout from Black voters means that that fat 80% margin counts for a greater relative portion of the whole vote. So it’s not just a question of who doesn’t actively turns off Black voters, but also who energizes them.

    3) There are other racial minorities that are implicated by this White-centric analysis.

  27. 25
    nojojojo says:

    Richard,

    You’re really making a lot of assumptions, and I wish you’d stop.

    I am a hard-working black person who initially leaned towards Clinton. I thought Obama sounded nice but didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell, while I at least knew Clinton could handle the flames like a master blacksmith. I’d have to say that my support for Obama has increased only a little over time — he’s still too conservative for my tastes — but my support for Clinton has plummeted with every attempt she’s made to play the Republican race-baiting game in this campaign. So now, yes, I’m for Obama — mostly because Clinton pissed me off.

    She did this. Not her whiteness, but her actions. As long as the Republicans employ blatantly racist tactics like the “Southern Strategy”, I will not vote for them. As long as Clinton employs the strategies of a Republican, I will not vote for her. Plain and simple.

    I can speak only for myself, of course. But I suspect the Democrats had better be careful; if there are a lot of black people out there who think like me, then the black vote is not a guarantee, by any means.

  28. 27
    BananaDanna says:

    “The 90% support from blacks is the result that speaks to racism, not, say, 60-40 from whites that speaks to racism.”

    Prove, pls.

  29. 28
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Banana.
    When you “prove” any vote by whites is based on racism.
    I know it’s a handy tool, in several senses, but it’s rarely “proven”.

    Blacks can be as independent as they want, and going 90% for Obama means either strong identity politics or a very high agreement with his policies. But there aren’t many groups with 90% policy agreement.

    As I say, it’s amusing to watch the dems racisming each other and, like nojo, claiming the repubs are the racists. Great fun.

    I note that Obama is Hamas’ choice, while Obama just dumped an advisor who’d been holding talks with Hamas. The campaign claimed the guy wasn’t an advisor. That makes Obama something special; he can fire somebody who doesn’t work for him. You try that sometime. Strikes me that hard-working anythings ought to think about that pretty carefully, but my guess is the hard-working blacks’ 90% won’t twitch (we’ll see) while the hard-working whites might get a bit more tentative than they are now.

    Yeah, the dems could piss off the hard-working blacks. They’d probably stay home instead of voting McCain. But the dems haven’t pissed them off enough to get below 80% of the black vote, as nojo points out, in a long time. It would be interesting to think about what it would take. If the supers chose Hillary, that could probably do it.

    But the point would be that the supers thought Hillary was more electable than Obama. It is up to those two to make the case they can prevail in the GE. Hillary says her appeal to a bigger group than the hard-working blacks ought to be considered in thinking about who’s more electable.

    Rush Limbaugh thinks that if the supers chose Hillary, the dem convention would look like its forty-years gone Chicago counterpart, to the advantage of the repubs. Plus the hard-working blacks stay home.

    Or, if they choose Obama, a number of dems, a poll in Indiana says, would vote McCain. Not even stay home. Vote McCain.

    I don’t know how the GE is going to work out, but I would hate to be a dem biggie right about now.

  30. 29
    nojojojo says:

    Richard,

    Blacks can be as independent as they want, and going 90% for Obama means either strong identity politics or a very high agreement with his policies.

    Or a very high reaction against the policies of his opponents. Or all of the above combined.

    That you fail to mention this very obvious logic gives me a pretty clear insight into your politics. At this point I think I’m going to stop trying to talk to you; there’s clearly no point, and I’ve had a rough day. Y’know, being hardworking and all that.

  31. 30
    nobody.really says:

    According to the Daily Show, the Obama campaign is already countering Clinton’s message with 1) a crash program to get more whites to complete their degrees before election day and 2) a campaign of friendly cajoling to get whites to stop being such hard-working suck-ups and relax a little.

  32. 31
    Tom Nolan says:

    I thought you were British. Why do you give a flying fig who the US president is?

    That’s a good question. Why, in point of fact, would anyone without voting rights in America give a damn who becomes president there? As we all know, the US exerts next to no economic, political or military influence on the rest of the world. So pull your head in, Daran, and worry about something more relevant, such as who’s going to win control of the Guernsey legislative assembly: that’s a power struggle worth observing. The US is a tiny, faraway country of which we know, and need to know, nothing.

  33. 32
    Gar Lipow says:

    OK I see a view attempts at excusing this on grounds that she “misspoke”. But obviously the the phrasing is such that it is very easy to read as racist. So question: if it really is just poor phrasing, why did she not issue a correction. She could simply say that she was tired and phrased it poorly. Or at the very least she could complain that it was being misunderstood, and that people should understand she did not mean it like that. Why didn’t she. At this point I have to assume that she means it like that, or at the least wants the voters in WV to understand it like that, and then correct after the WV primary is over. Which would show a very elitist disrespect for the voters of WV.

    For more on that:
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/9/141019/4319/894/512709

  34. 33
    BananaDanna says:

    “When you “prove” any vote by whites is based on racism.
    I know it’s a handy tool, in several senses, but it’s rarely “proven”.”

    I didn’t take the position that you’ve attributed to me, because I’m willing to admit that I don’t know. You made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. Given that the black vote broke overwhelmingly in favor of the white candidate last election when there were multiple democratic black candidates to choose instead, it just doesn’t wash, unless <90% of black dems decided to categorically refuse to vote for white presidential candidates when there’s a black one available in the space of 4 years.

  35. 34
    Richard Aubrey says:

    nojo.
    What policies of Hillary’s would you think annoyed hard-working blacks so much? Remember, Obama got some serious hard-working black support BEFORE she said what we’re talking about here.
    The dems routinely get 80%, for some reason. Now we’re up to 90%. Are Obama’s policies so new and different as to increase his support among hard-working blacks by one-eighth? Hell, what are his policies, anyway?

    Banana. I’m sorry. I don’t quite understand the question. Can you rephrase it for me?

  36. 35
    BananaDanna says:

    “Remember, Obama got some serious hard-working black support BEFORE she said what we’re talking about here.”

    But after her & her cronies said a LOT of other stuff. Before all of that, she had overwhelming black support, so much so, the big story was “Why don’t black people like Obama?” I’ve asked you to prove what you said, and you asked me to prove something I never said…. then I said that I don’t have to prove things that I didn’t say, and as a result of the burden of proof, you have to prove the positive assertion you made — you can’t just say “prove it isn’t true.” I’m asking you “How can you say that the black vote for Obama can be largely attributed to racism when black people voted for white candidates over black ones as recently as last election?”

  37. 36
    Ampersand says:

    Incidently, I don’t see voting for a black candidate because, all else being equal, one would like to see black people in high elected office, as “racist.”

    Imagine a speaker taking questions in an auditorium. The first ten people the speaker calls on all happen to be seated on the east side of the auditorium. For the eleventh question, the speaker says “well, I should call on one of the hands on the other side of the auditorium, to give them a chance too.”

    Is the speaker being unfairly prejudiced against folks on the east side of the auditorium, in that example?

  38. 37
    FurryCatHerder says:

    OK I see a view attempts at excusing this on grounds that she “misspoke”. But obviously the the phrasing is such that it is very easy to read as racist. So question: if it really is just poor phrasing, why did she not issue a correction. She could simply say that she was tired and phrased it poorly. Or at the very least she could complain that it was being misunderstood, and that people should understand she did not mean it like that. Why didn’t she.

    Because if she corrects the statement she can’t point to the idiocy of the reading she is getting.

    Here’s how I see that going down.

    “Hi, what I was trying to say is that I have broad based appeal. I can’t tell you all the groups I appeal to that my worthy opponent doesn’t appeal to, because then I’d be accused of racism, but I have broad based appeal.”

  39. 38
    Bjartmarr says:

    cola
    How would you parse her statement, then?

    I don’t see how my interpretation is relevant. What’s relevant is that a reasonable person could interpret it differently than you have, therefore you promoting your interpretation as her actual statement is inaccurate.

    It’s probably true that most Democrats think that California will go to the Democratic candidate in the general. Because of that, none of the three candidates are going to craft their positions to pander to Californians (in either the primary or the general). Were you to press them, you might be able to get them to admit it, using words similar to the ones Clinton used. Would it then be appropriate to say that “xxx candidate said that no one should care about Californians’ preferences”?

    Of course not. The candidates (well…Obama and Clinton, anyway) care about Californians’ preferences. They’re just not about to pander to us if it could cost them the election, that’s all. (The situations aren’t quite parallel, for obvious reasons. I’m just giving an example of how a candidate could care about voters’ preferences, but not be terribly mindful of them in an election.)

    The point isn’t that you and I (and a lot of other people on this blog) disagree. The point is that reasonable people such as you and I do disagree, and therefore presenting your interpretation as fact is (unintentionally, I’m sure) deceptive.

    (Same goes for Amp’s initial posting. He’s a reasonable person, and he’s got a reasonable interpretation. What’s unreasonable is his posting his massaged interpretation as fact. I’m not asking that you all agree that my opinions are correct…only that they are reasonable (if perhaps wrong).

    (And if you really want to know how I would interpret her statement, it’s that anybody who’s not a swing voter gets ignored. Californians get ignored, fiscal conservatives get ignored, peace activists get ignored, and, sadly, black people get ignored. But that’s not the same as saying that nobody should care about their opinions, and that’s really not the point of this post.)

    Gar
    if it really is just poor phrasing, why did she not issue a correction.
    This is a fair question and a good point. The best reason I can think of is that by clarifying and apologizing for it, she has to necessarily bring it up again. The media will cover it again, and the resulting brouhaha might damage her campaign more than just letting it go would.

    Or perhaps she is hoping that bigots in WV will interpret it the same way you have. Though I don’t see how that would help her…it’s not like those bigots would have been voting for Obama in the first place. But it’s a reasonable interpretation.

    Either way, it boils down to her believing that a correction would lose her more votes than it would gain.

  40. 39
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Amp, “all else being equal”. That is a useful theoretical point. But there is no indication that many people think the two are equal.
    A hard-working black who votes for Obama because he’s black and thus does not try to see if they are, indeed, equal, or, more likely, not equal in issues that concern him or her is…?
    For the sake of discussion, on how many issues would a hard-working black take second best in order to have a black president and consider it a net gain?

  41. 40
    FurryCatHerder says:

    For the sake of discussion, on how many issues would a hard-working black take second best in order to have a black president and consider it a net gain?

    I’m not a hard-working black, and I think Clinton is the better qualified candidate, and I’ve stated I think she’s a schmuck, so I’ll tell you why I settled for “second best” when I voted for Obama in the primary.

    Clinton is very bright — I think that’s pretty undeniable. But Clinton is the kind of politician whose pursuit of power is more about her power than anyone elses power. Wanting political power isn’t a bad thing, but the scorched earth approach she is taking tells me that she is blinded by her own ambitions, and that’s what we’ve had from the current administration. This kind of personality defect is what leads to the political grid-lock that is the hallmark of the Bush administration. It leads to the deception that got us into Iraq, judicial nominations that were intentionally unacceptable and tied up the judicial appointment process, endless “signing statements” on bills indicating the president plans to ignore the laws passed by Congress, and a slew of other problems.

    On what issues is the “second best” better? On the issue of being able to actually work with other people. This is the same issue that has done so much damage to the Republican party, and because we’ve had nearly 8 years of Republican rule, to the United States. I’d love nothing more than for Hillary Clinton to be the next president of the United States. Her ideologies are more in keeping with my own politics — social liberalism, fiscal conservativism — than Obama, but how can I trust her to work with anyone else to put those values into effect? Obama is my second choice — I can’t trust McCain not to go start some war with Iran, or not just rubber-stamp the Jesus Party’s religious policies, and I can’t trust Hillary to work with anyone she disagrees with.

  42. 41
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Furry.

    I dunno. You think Hillary can’t intimidate those she needs to cooperate? I mean, she threw the WH Travel Office guys under the bus, and then, just for fun, sicced the FBI on them to make them spend themselves bankrupt in legal defenses. And that was just to get some shirt tail relations a job. What if it were important?

    If you refer to Iran, I’d say the war has started, several decades ago. We just haven’t recognized it socially. It’s been a matter of considering the Americans they kill each year or two sort of background noise. I suppose we could go on like that for practically ever. Which is what not starting a war would be. Until they nuke somebody.

    Wretchard, over on Belmont Club, has “three conjectures” which are pretty interesting. The implication is that the best thing we can do for the Iranians and the rest of the Middle East is start the war yesterday. Otherwise, tens and tens of millions of Muslims die in the next decade.

    Whatever it is, it’s more complicated than thinking if we don’t fight there won’t be a catastrophe and if we do, there will, and it will be the worst thing which could possibly happen.

  43. 42
    Gar Lipow says:

    Me: if it really is just poor phrasing, why did she not issue a correction.

    Richard
    >This is a fair question and a good point. The best
    reason I can think of is that by clarifying and apologizing for it, she has to necessarily bring it up again. The media will cover it again, and the resulting brouhaha might damage her campaign more than just letting it go would.

    >Or perhaps she is hoping that bigots in WV will interpret it the same way you have. Though I don’t see how that would help her…it’s not like those bigots would have been voting for Obama in the first place. But it’s a reasonable interpretation.

    >Either way, it boils down to her believing that a correction would lose her more votes than it would gain.

    So at the very least she is leaving a racist meme out there for political benefit. Look, racism is not just personal prejudice. If you encourage racist views, it does not matter whether you personally believe what you are pushing or not. It is racist either way. George Wallace was famous for not believing the bullshit he pushed.A Clinton comment out there is widely interpreted as pushing the view that black people are not hard wording. Not correcting that is a racist act. And it is racist, regardless of whether Clinton has hatred or prejudice in her heart.

  44. 43
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Gar. “is widely interpreted”. Let’s suppose there was no intent 0n Hillary’s part, and, more to the point, that a reasonable explanation is that she was speaking of the voters in play–“hard working white people” to differentiate them from blacks who are not in play. Also, permanent welfare folks probably aren’t on her side, white or not, since her hubby was prez when welfare reforms were enacted. So that leaves working white folks. Seems the sort of thing a professional politician and candidate would think and say.
    That the Permanently Offended pretend to think it’s racist is hardly her fault. Except that the PO want everybody walking on eggshells and self-censoring anything which might be, 1, inconvenient to the PO, and, 2, might provide even a hugely unlikely stretch to “smack of racism”.
    What if Hillary figures the larger audience is on to the PO and so she doesn’t have to do that dance no more?
    BTW, the larger audience is.

  45. 44
    sylphhead says:

    When you “prove” any vote by whites is based on racism.
    I know it’s a handy tool, in several senses, but it’s rarely “proven”.

    Most white people aren’t racist, but the few there are can swing a close election. Even if only 10% of White people vote against Obama because of his race, that essentially equals the Black vote. The margin would depend on region. There appears to be a linear relationship between the history of poor Black/White relations in a state and Clinton’s margins among White people. Obama has no trouble winning White voters in states like Wisconsin, Connecticut, or (upcoming) Oregon. He suffers a 2-1 margin, however, in states like North Carolina, Mississippi, or West Virginia (upcoming).

    Of course, those states with regrettable histories can’t just be discarded, so Obama’s not exactly in the clear.

    Blacks can be as independent as they want, and going 90% for Obama means either strong identity politics or a very high agreement with his policies. But there aren’t many groups with 90% policy agreement.

    Blacks have gone 90% for Democrats for the past two elections. (90% for Gore, 87% for Kerry.)

    It isn’t necessarily just policy agreement. It is a combination of policy agreement and the conduct of the other campaign.

    As I say, it’s amusing to watch the dems racisming each other and, like nojo, claiming the repubs are the racists. Great fun.

    Saying the word “amusing” more than once in a discussion is clear indication of novice, chip-on-the-shoulder wingerdom, right along with saying “nope” five or six times and uttering “that was funny, but not in the way he intended (TM)”.

    I’m not trying to be overly snarky; this has been bothering me recently, and I would have called someone on it even if s/he was on my side. I would like the level of discussion to go beyond that of a newsgroup posting where half the posts are in all capital letters. Of course, I’m not a moderator.

    I don’t know how the GE is going to work out, but I would hate to be a dem biggie right about now.

    The Republican leadership and the NRCC disagree with you. Republican losses in the House and Senate are all but guaranteed, and partisan Democratic identification is the highest it’s been in decades. It’d be a shame if the Democrats throw the White House away this year, but at least years of failed Republican policies are pushing the electorate toward a more leftward baseline.

    What policies of Hillary’s would you think annoyed hard-working blacks so much? Remember, Obama got some serious hard-working black support BEFORE she said what we’re talking about here.

    Clinton was competitive with Black voters until the ugly South Carolina race. She was actually firmly in the lead prior to Iowa, but a number switched to Obama after that from seeing White people (Iowa) validating a Black candidate.

    The dems routinely get 80%, for some reason. Now we’re up to 90%.

    80% is the margin, 90% is the raw percentage. 90% D – 10 % R = 80%, give or take a few percentage points. Gore: 90/9, Kerry 87/12.

    I dunno. You think Hillary can’t intimidate those she needs to cooperate? I mean, she threw the WH Travel Office guys under the bus, and then, just for fun, sicced the FBI on them to make them spend themselves bankrupt in legal defenses. And that was just to get some shirt tail relations a job. What if it were important?

    Indeed. I’m unfamiliar with the references, however. Can someone clarify if this is something legitimate to hold against Hillary, or it’s another Vince Foster-type scenario?

    If you refer to Iran, I’d say the war has started, several decades ago. We just haven’t recognized it socially. It’s been a matter of considering the Americans they kill each year or two sort of background noise. I suppose we could go on like that for practically ever. Which is what not starting a war would be. Until they nuke somebody.

    Wretchard, over on Belmont Club, has “three conjectures” which are pretty interesting. The implication is that the best thing we can do for the Iranians and the rest of the Middle East is start the war yesterday. Otherwise, tens and tens of millions of Muslims die in the next decade.

    As I recall, you evaded a number of my arguments on another thread saying that they were inapplicable since you did not support invasion and occupation of Iran. I agreed. But now, are you switching to a pro-invasion position? If so, let me resurrect my arguments from the past thread. If not, what exactly do you mean by “starting a war” with Iran but not “invading and occupying” them?

    Keep in mind, yet another example of negative fallout from the Iraq invasion was that hundreds of thousands of American troops are essentially held hostage right on the border with Iran. I don’t mean to suggest that they are helpless or incapable – far from it – but it will not be the case that any confrontation could consist of only air superiority.

  46. 45
    sylphhead says:

    It’s probably true that most Democrats think that California will go to the Democratic candidate in the general. Because of that, none of the three candidates are going to craft their positions to pander to Californians (in either the primary or the general). Were you to press them, you might be able to get them to admit it, using words similar to the ones Clinton used. Would it then be appropriate to say that “xxx candidate said that no one should care about Californians’ preferences”?

    I understand that argument, but respectfully I’d like to repeat why I still think it operates under racist assumptions. The Black vote is still a swing vote. It can’t swing much further for the Democrats (although conceivably it could go 94/5 with Obama, which would make a big difference in a couple of states such as Michigan), but it can certainly swing down. Since the Black vote is much more concentrated and less diffuse than the White vote, the chances of a catastrophic collapse among Black voters, on orders of a 20% reduction of margin, is more likely than the same with White voters. Here, overanalysis obfuscates and common sense is correct: taking the Black vote for granted does amount to a disparaging view of Black voters. And taking the Black vote as a “given” is taking them for granted.

    Also, your analogy fails because Clinton was never “pressed” into saying that Black votes don’t matter and that her margins among White voters in some states (but not others) is all that does. That has been her active campaign strategy for a while. That is why it appears racist. It is no different that what the Bush Republicans did to McCain Independents back in 2000.

  47. 46
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Sylph.
    The Travel Office issue was early in the first admin. The scummiest thing imaginable. Vicious and egregious. Just for fun from a couple of sociopaths.

    Ref Iran: What I want is not exactly the point. The point is what happens when Iran’s centrifuges get going and terrorists start getting nukes. None of that is my doing, nor is it affected by my druthers.

    James Woolsey recently made the point that Ahwhos… Adm.. Ahdmeni… that guy’s spiritual advisor is so nuts that Khomenei exiled him to Qom. He is of the strain of Islam which thinks that when one third of the world is dead, one third dying of disease and starvation, the cries of pain will bring the twelfth imam and Allah to lead the final battle. And it’s up to the faithful to bring this about. Adwhosits has also said that the death of twenty million Iranians is a worthy price to get rid of Israel. This is not the Politburo, a bunch of bozos who were, officially, atheists and had no next life to console them. Deterrence is a bit chancy with these guys.
    So, says Wretchard who says it better than I relate it, first thing that happens is that we know what the terrs will do. No question there. And we know what they will do with a nuke. No question there. Eventually, after the first or tenth US city goes up in nuclear flame, we start broadcasting our own nukes all over Islamadom. It will be politically impossible not to do that. Now, says Wretchard, if we don’t, for some unlikely reason, there remain China, Russia, France, and Britain who are all terr targets along with us, and the first two, at least, have demonstrated far fewer scruples in dustups with foreigners. See Grozny.
    Three conjectures:
    1. The terrs will use whatever they can. Their purpose is not in doubt, only their means.
    2. If Iran gets the bomb–or North Korea, or Pakistan lets some loose, or Russia discovers they can’t account for a couple of dozen–then the terrs will eventually have nukes. See the FARC computer and the goodies the Colombians found recently. And, see number one above, the terrs will use their nukes.
    3. The victim state, probably us, will eventually get crazy at being nuked and start nuking Muslims, killing them by the tens of millions.

    I don’t see any illogicallity in the conjectures. Nothing strikes me as being less than certain.

    The key to this conundrum would be to see the terrs don’t get nukes, which is to say, the Iranians don’t get to build one.

    No, I don’t see invading and occupying Iran. I see bombing its infrastructure in such a way as to both impede or end the nuke effort and facilitate a change of government. Iran is so effed up that their oil industry is falling apart due to lack of investment in maintenance and they must import about 40% of their refined petroleum products because they don’t have the refinery capacity. Various blockade/sanction/financial actions could be taken. But when we did that in Iraq, the liberals claimed we were killing Iraqi babies. Which, after invading, the liberals seemed to think we should have kept on doing. Hard to figure what they want. But I don’t see much more success with that sort of thing than we had with Saddaam. The UN might see some opportunity for graft there, come to think of it.

    If that isn’t done, we are almost certainly going to see conjectures one through three in the next fifteen years.

    An alternative is for Islam to get hold of its nutcases. But Islamic governments don’t seem either capable or willing.

    There was a recent high-profile conversion from Islam to Catholicism in Italy. The converted was a Muslim under death threats for pushing moderate Islam. His conclusion was that a moderate Muslim is a slacker Muslim, the Islamic version of a Christian who goes to church on Christmas and Easter, at weddings and funerals.
    But a moderate Muslim is an apostate. None of the major schools of thought in Islam, he says, supports moderate Islam. You can’t be actively moderate and not be an apostate. You can only be a slacker. About a third of young Brit Muslims polled said they thought the penalty for apostasy should be death. This is different thinking. And, as one guy said, we must think anew.

    All of which is beyond the point that there will not be “starting a war” with Iran. Only responding to one they started, or not.

  48. 47
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Sylph.
    The dems have depended on getting 80% of the black vote for years. The dems make the usual show ups. Black churches, the NAACP, a black college, do the old dance and say the old stuff, and go on. Never fails.
    As Charles Barkley remarked, the poor have been voting dem for fifty years and they’re still poor. He doesn’t think much of that voting pattern, considering its results.

  49. 48
    sylphhead says:

    A nuke won’t necessarily endanger American cities. To project nuclear capability on a world scale, you need either ICBM capability or a navy, neither or which Iran is acquiring soon. A nuked Israel (which is the worst possible outcome) isn’t an acceptable outcome, but “mushroom clouds over New York City” is plain hyperbole.

    That said, here are my problems with your argument:

    1. “There’s no doubt what terrorists will do”.

    Alternatively, one can say there is no doubt what fascists or communists will do. How much of a danger you perceive from this, and therefore what price you’re willing to pay (or to be more specific, what you’re expecting other people to pay) depends on how you define “terrorist” or “fascist”. I believe there are many angry people in the Middle East hostile to the United States and Israel. I don’t believe most are terrorists.

    2. “What I want is not exactly the point. The point is what happens when Iran’s centrifuges get going and terrorists start getting nukes.”

    The credibility of those push for war with Iran is very much in point, because the status of Iran’s nuclear program is not clear cut. The IAEA has remained on the fence, saying that the nuclear program in Iran is probably not a weapons program but with reserved uncertainty. It has denounced Washington’s attempts to inflate the current threat level. Given the time it takes to actually develop nuclear weapon capability, I’d rather wait for the IAEA to make a more proper verdict and then respond accordingly.

    No, I don’t see invading and occupying Iran. I see bombing its infrastructure in such a way as to both impede or end the nuke effort and facilitate a change of government.

    That again depends on what you mean by “infrastructure”. Military infrastructure, as Israel did in response to Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, would be an appropriate response. Civilian infrastructure requires, for me, a higher bar of requirement, one that doesn’t accept “damn what the IAEA says, international commissions hate America” as logical reasoning. I don’t think the current situation has come even close to that bar yet. We’ve so recently nearly ruined the country following a similar path, and the Bush administration is taking the wrong one yet again.

    For instance, Iran has offered compromise proposals, such as allowing it to develop a nuclear program under the supervision of the IAEA. The US rejected it. I think it would have been far better to accept. For strategic reasons, we probably shouldn’t take them entirely at their word, and have contingency strategies in hold, but unwarranted belligerence limits our options and our allies.

    Would Iran accept building a nuclear program under NATO supervision? I doubt it, but it’s a counteroffer we should be making. As far as I know, we’re not even on the bargaining table yet, which looks like a grievous strategic error – unless the administration’s goals are different.

    I gauge the credibility of anti-Iran advocates because while I believe preventing a country from obtaining nukes that has shown clear indications that it may use it (against Israel) should be everyone’s goal, that isn’t the only goal for some people. There are those who, while not necessarily agitating for a war (no one wants another one at this point), are at least agitating for a confrontation, and are convincing themselves that a peaceful solution is less likely than it actually is, because such a confrontation would vindicate their discredited ideologies; there’s a conflict of interest. And a good way to judge that is to look at their positions on Iraq.

    All of which is beyond the point that there will not be “starting a war” with Iran. Only responding to one they started, or not.

    That’s a childish playground game I’m uninterested in playing. Should the US initiate a catastrophic war that will undoubtedly slaughter millions? It sounds bad, but if there’s a clear and present danger to Israel, at a level international observers and world leaders, as opposed to just American wingnuts, can agree to, that may be our last course of action. But I’m impatient with those who push that option for scenarios far below that level of acknowledged danger.

    The dems have depended on getting 80% of the black vote for years.

    In the 2004 election, they depended on getting 90%, just as Gore did. You are trying to make this measly distinction because you are trying to make Obama’s own 90% figure look that much more unprecedented as a not-so-subtle way to impugn Black voters. It’s transparent and I won’t respond any more to this parsing of 80% vs. 90%.

    As Charles Barkley remarked, the poor have been voting dem for fifty years and they’re still poor. He doesn’t think much of that voting pattern, considering its results.

    That analogy doesn’t work because poverty isn’t a static condition like race – unless you’re contending that poverty amounts to entrenchment into a permanent underclass in America, in which case the appropriate question to ask is what the hell is wrong with America. I don’t think that’s the case. The same poor people who voted Democrat in 1992 aren’t the same ones who did in 2004. “They” are not still poor, because they is no “they”. Rather, there’s something about poverty that being in it makes one vote Democrat.

  50. 49
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Sylph. Good for you accepting that the poor can become unpoor, as most of them do. But if we substitute blacks, we have a problem. Either there has been enormous progress–which the race hustlers can’t afford to admit–or voting dem is worthless. Which neither the dems nor the race hustlers can afford to admit.

    The IAEA wanted Israel to have told them in advance of the facility that Israel struck some months ago. Means the IAEA didn’t know about it. Nor about the Libyan program. Depending on them isn’t a safe bet.

    I don’t see the US intiating a war that will kill millions. I see the US pre-empting a war–see the conjectures–which will kill millions. But if we don’t do it, that leaves unanswered the question of how many Americans it is acceptable for the Iranians to kill every year and still call it “peace”. The Israelis also have that question and the answer from the international community seems to be, “as many as it takes,”.

    The terrs tried to explode an entire truck convoy of tons of explosives and nerve gas in Amman some years ago. We must think anew. Imputing any sort of rational thought to these guys is seriously limiting us.

    I know many people in the ME don’t like us. My give-a-damn’s busted. To state they are not all terrorists is to state the obvious and the irrelevant. It’s the ones who are terrorists that are the problem, and those who are one step or two steps away and are willing to support them, or pretend not to see them.

    When the famous seventeen, later eighteen Muslims in Canada were caught preparing to take over Parliament and behead the PM, and blow the place up, about twelve percent of the Canadian Muslims polled thought it was a good idea. That means about 84,000 Canadian Muslims, who have no conceivable reason to hate Canada, no conceivable reason explicable to the rest of us, are in favor of such an atrocity.
    Depending on looking at such thinking and thinking it’s limited by our way of thinking is limiting. Also, a bow to the multicultis here, it’s kind of culturally chauvinist, too.
    Also, Wretchard’s conjectures do not include an ICBM or a blue-water navy for Iran. You recall the smuggled suitcase nuke so favored of those opposed to missile defense. Where’d that go, all of a convenient sudden?
    But, if you want to restrict it to ICBMs, look at the range in Europe of Iran’s current abilities.
    We–you, actually–are depending on the Iranians and the terrorists not doing what they have repeatedly said they will do.
    Doesn’t seem all that prudent, and, a bow to the multicultis hereabouts, kind of smugly superior to imply the wogs are just running their mouths. They don’t really mean it.

  51. 50
    Ampersand says:

    Richard, what, exactly, does the term “race hustler” mean? And which particular public figures are race hustlers in your view?

    Is Jessie Jackson a race hustler? How about bell hooks?

    Also, who is a contemporary, left-wing, leader who concentrates on fighting racist injustice who you don’t consider to be a “race hustler”?

  52. 51
    Charles S says:

    Richard,

    By no means do you have the anti-colonial, not-actually-a-white-person credentials to be able to use the word Wog ironically. Don’t do it again.

  53. 52
    Richard Aubrey says:

    amp. Jackson is. I don’t know enough about hooks. Most of Duke’s Group of 88 are. Fighting racial injustice is not the same as being a race hustler. Al Sharpton is.

    Charles. You’re telling me not to use a word??? Really?

    Sylph and those who think like her are pretty condescending to others of a darker persuasion when they tell us, by implication or directly, that these poor folks don’t mean it. They’re just running their wog mouths. I figure I’m being more respectful by taking them seriously. It’s not infantilizing them.

    I need qualifications to use a word? Who’s anti-colonial outside the confines of his keyboard, anyway? You see any colonies around, any more? All the ones you hate were gone before you got out of high school. Places like Zimbabwe, courtesy, among others, of the WCC’s anti-coloniall efforts, are doing just fine. Aren’t they? Those held in durance vile by non-western powers don’t count, of course. Give me a break. The wonderfulness quotient around here is going to require me to get an insulin shot.

  54. 53
    Mandolin says:

    Charles. You’re telling me not to use a word??? Really?

    Sylph and those who think like her are pretty condescending to others of a darker persuasion when they tell us, by implication or directly, that these poor folks don’t mean it. They’re just running their wog mouths.

    Yes, he is. And he’s a moderator. And you responded by ignoring him and doing it again.

    I am also a moderator. You’ll abide by the rules of this place, or you can find somewhere else to spout your racist garbage.

  55. 54
    BananaDanna says:

    Just like Richard didn’t answer my question, he didn’t answer Amp’s question about who he doesn’t consider to be a “race hustler”. Did anyone else notice that?

  56. 55
    Ampersand says:

    Regarding “wog”: What they said.

    Regarding “race hustler,” I’m afraid you only answered one third of my questions.

    So, again, let me ask: What does the term mean? I think it means “left-wing black leader or activist who focuses on fighting racist injustice”; certainly, I’ve never seen the term used in a way that contradicts that definition. Like it’s sibling term “race pimp,” it seems to be more about name-calling than about anything of substance.

    But if you have a better definition, I’d be interested in seeing it.

    Also again: What contemporary left-wing leaders who focus on racial injustice issues, would you say are not “race hustlers”?

  57. 56
    Ampersand says:

    Richard, I didn’t let your most recent post through. If you don’t want to accept the moderation here, then by all means, don’t post here. But if you do want to post here, accept the moderation and be civil about it. Your choice.

  58. 57
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Banana.
    Those who aren’t race hustlers aren’t race hustlers. Simple. Those who are, are. I know a number of blacks who aren’t race hustlers.
    On the public side are Sowell, Cosby, Williams, McWhorter, Rice.
    Since few of you will sully yourselves by reading conservative blogs, permit me to enlighten you. During the first first W admin, the conservatives were happily pitching Condi for POTUS, or at least VEEP for seasoning. They were serious. Then she went all mushy–which, as somebody said, even Hulk Hogan would after a spell at State–and she’s not getting the love as she did before.
    Colin Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and history’s most lethal soldiers thought nothing of it.

    Scoop for Mandolin: Accusations of racism are manipulative scams and known to be so by the accusers. They are designed to make the accused shut up about whatever you can’t handle with facts.
    Problem is, they don’t work any more. They died. They’re gone. Ils ne marche pas. Nobody’s buying it. The accuser looks worse than the accused. Am I getting through?

  59. 58
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Amp. A race hustler is one who, like Jesse Jackson, uses issues of racism to enrich himself. Either he does it by shaking down corporations or he does it by using it politically.
    Rev. Wright got rich promoting it.
    Since racism isn’t what it used to be, they have to make stuff up.
    You’ll recall the executives canned over “jelly beans” and such like. That was what they’d been taught by their diversity trainer. It was a pure put-up job and everybody knows it.
    I suppose you could call the phenomenon a “race pimp”. But I’ve heard the “hustler” far more often.

  60. 59
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Missed that question:

    I don’t know of any leftwing leaders fighting for racial justice to an extent I could judge.
    Since I dislike leftwing leaders as a matter of principle, my guess is I’d be likely to see their positions on racial justice as flawed as their positions on other issues.

    As Ellis Cose, in his “Rage of The Privileged Class” let slip inadvertently, pointing to racism is an excuse for any number of problems. He wrote that too fast and needed better editing. But it’s really fun when something like that makes it into the sunlight. Not that it’s a surprise. Sort of like when Jesse Jackson got tangled up in his mouth, saying he’d prefer to hear the footsteps of a white guy behind him at night than those of a black guy.

  61. 60
    Ampersand says:

    Richard, your comments have become both condesending and rude in tone. Please get your tone under control.

    Scoop for Mandolin: Accusations of racism are manipulative scams and known to be so by the accusers. They are designed to make the accused shut up about whatever you can’t handle with facts.
    Problem is, they don’t work any more. They died. They’re gone. Ils ne marche pas. Nobody’s buying it. The accuser looks worse than the accused. Am I getting through?

    Yes, but Richard, this is what some conservatives have always said. It’s what conservatives like you were saying 40 and 50 years ago. It’s always been the case — according to white conservatives — that racism used to be a serious problem, but isn’t anymore. And the civil rights movement — like feminism — is always predicted to be a flash in the pan, on the verge of fading into insignificance.

    Meanwhile, there remains a huge wealth disparity by race. There remains a huge employment disparity. There remains a huge disparity in criminal sentencing. There remains a huge disparity in how people are treated by police. Etc, etc, etc..

    Studies that send trained researchers to apply for jobs — using similar clothing, similar resumes, and rehearsed answers meant to sound alike — show that racism still matters today, and still gives white people a better shot. Another study found that employers discriminate against applicants with common African-American names, even without seeing the person.

    The facts show pretty clearly that although progress has been made, racism remains a serious problem today. If you can’t take that seriously, that’s your problem, but its not a reason for those of us who oppose racism to change our views.

  62. 61
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Amp.
    If McWhorter is to be believed, his view is–my phrasing–that racism is ‘way down at the bottom of the top ten to-do list for blacks.
    I agree. Problem is, talking endlessly about racism is easier than doing anything about the other problems.
    I see you said “wealth disparity”. That’s good. It means you’ve given up on the “income disparity”. Intact white and intact black families have about the same income. Single moms don’t make much, and since the proportion of blacks who are single moms is higher than among whites, the per-family (counting single moms as families) income of blacks is lower. But this gives us a picture which is encouraging. Intact black families are doing better than white single moms.
    The sentencing issue is mostly about coke, and it was black community leaders who pushed for heavy punishment for crack dealers, as they were destroying the black community.

    As I say, the problems which are more important are scarier. That’s why so many won’t let go of racism.
    Besides, it’s easy not to be a racist. And if you can condemn the highest possible number of your fellow citizens as being racists, you get to be in the superior minority. Cheap.

  63. 62
    Richard Aubrey says:

    sylph.
    I don’t do links well. You might enjoy doing this yourself, anyway.
    Google Amman terror bombing trucks

    Lots of good stuff there.

    Would have been worse than 9-11, and possibly worse than some of the mass bombing raids of WW II.

    I use this to make the point that thinking about the terrorists as if they think like we do, that they can be moved by the things which move us, that they have goals which they will compromise on is probably a bad idea. And that goes for, among others, the nutcases running Iran.

    Of course, I could use Beslan, as well.

  64. 63
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Amp. That name study is interesting. Didn’t “Emily” come in last? Some white bread woman’s name was last.
    More complicated than the easy conclusion.

  65. 64
    Ampersand says:

    I see you said “wealth disparity”. That’s good. It means you’ve given up on the “income disparity”.

    I think income disparity is a serious problem, but wealth disparity is a more serious problem. And even after controlling for sex, education, years in the workforce, and other factors, individual non-whites on average still get paid less than equivilent whites.

    The sentencing issue is mostly about coke, and it was black community leaders who pushed for heavy punishment for crack dealers, as they were destroying the black community.

    You’re wrong to imply that the sentencing issue doesn’t matter outside of cocaine-related crimes. For virtually all crimes, whites on average receive lesser sentences than blacks.

    Nor can crack — which ceased to be much of a problem years ago — explain away the huge disparities in police abuse, such as stop and frisks overwhelmingly directed at innocent people of color.

    Regarding crack and cocaine, do you have a mainstream (i.e., not the National Review or some similar group) citation for your claim about the origin of crack sentencing laws? Regardless of origins, however, it has for many years been the case that black community leaders have been objecting strongly to the racial disparities caused by the sentencing inequalities. It is because of white politicians, not black community leaders, that reform in this area has been so slow to come.

    And if you can condemn the highest possible number of your fellow citizens as being racists, you get to be in the superior minority. Cheap.

    You use this sort of ad hom attack on motivations quite a lot. I think it’s a sloppy form of argumentation.

  66. 65
    sylphhead says:

    Sylph. Good for you accepting that the poor can become unpoor, as most of them do.

    So you accept that Barkley’s comment doesn’t make sense. “The poor” are not a static group. “The poor” are not so much a problem so much as poverty is.

    But if we substitute blacks, we have a problem. Either there has been enormous progress–which the race hustlers can’t afford to admit–or voting dem is worthless. Which neither the dems nor the race hustlers can afford to admit.

    There are more logical holes here than there are sentences.

    First, being poor isn’t the only reason for Black voters to vote Democrat. The Republican party has a half-century’s worth of history of exploiting racism for political ends. Republicans are deluded if they think anyone’s forgotten Willie Horton or the Southern Strategy. Plus, you could vote Democrat simply because you’re of a liberal philosophy, without explicitly relating it to race.

    Second, the Democratic Party’s fortunes are not tied to people seeing poverty in America going as deep as an entrenched caste system – their ameliorative and gradualist policies are inconsistent with such a philosophy. It is the Republican Party that apparently believes that poverty in America is too deep to solve.

    Third, there is no dichotomy between “enormous progress has been made” and “voting Dem is worthless”. There are several other possibilities. Voting Democrat may have made some progress, just not “enormous” progress. Voting Democrat may have made no progress, but only because Democrats have not been in power enough to help Black people. Voting Democrat may make no progress even if they are in power long enough, but it’s better than voting Republican which would entail active regression. And so forth.

    Fourth, there’s no reason why Black voters would or should abandon the Democratic even if enormous progress has been made. That’s like saying I should stop working for a company that has paid me generously right after I finished paying off my debts – in fact, it’s like saying I should then quit and go work for their rival company.

    The IAEA wanted Israel to have told them in advance of the facility that Israel struck some months ago. Means the IAEA didn’t know about it. Nor about the Libyan program. Depending on them isn’t a safe bet.

    I’m under no illusions that these sorts of institutions are perfect. However, I do know that the current administration and its right-wing supporters have an even worse track record, and I’d rather trust the IAEA than them.

    Ideally, any sort of compromise that involves supervision of Iran would involve more than just detached regulatory agencies. Perhaps an agency set up specifically for that task consisting of American, German, British, Russian, and Chinese interests – the latter two having economic reasons to support Iran and so Iran can be assured of some sort of balance.

    I know many people in the ME don’t like us. My give-a-damn’s busted. To state they are not all terrorists is to state the obvious and the irrelevant. It’s the ones who are terrorists that are the problem, and those who are one step or two steps away and are willing to support them, or pretend not to see them.

    That would make more sense if “terrorists in the Middle East” were a static quantity and a fact of life. They aren’t. Certain actions can increase their number, such as invading a country within that region for political purposes or needlessly complicating necessary talks for ideological reasons. Other actions, such as showing the US to be reasonable society that abhors war and does the best it can for mutual cooperation, will give other peoples a reason to admire our prosperity rather than resent it, and turn against their unhinged religious conservative leaders who have driven them to near ruin.

    I agree that Islamic leaders have not done nearly enough to denounce the violence done in Islam’s name.

    We–you, actually–are depending on the Iranians and the terrorists not doing what they have repeatedly said they will do.

    On the contrary, it allows for a very active contingency plan should it appear that we are facing the worst case scenario. But only if. That I’m not advocating going in guns a-blazing to salve the Right’s wounded credibility does not mean I don’t appreciate the threat of a potentially nuclear Iran.

    What evidence do you have that military action is required right now?

    Sylph and those who think like her

    I’m a man.

  67. 66
    matttbastard says:

    Holy flaming shitbags!

    Blast. From. The. Past.

    You use this sort of ad hom attack on motivations quite a lot. I think it’s a sloppy form of argumentation.

    Yeah, nice to see that even after all these years, Aubrey is still…Aubrey.

  68. 67
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Amp. My point about progress in racism is not my primary point. In fact, I allowed myself to be distracted even though I anticipated the effort.
    My point is that accusations of racism are about 90% bogus and known to be bogus by the accuser. What is new is that everybody knows they’re bogus and so…they no longer work.
    “Hate” got hauled in to take its place, but that didn’t have legs. It’s still used, but nobody pays it any attention.

    To make a point about why referring to racism is valuable…. UMich could do its affirmative action without leaving its collective office. Trying to fix the Detroit schools would be hard, sweaty, dangerous, unwelcome, and even expose one to accusations of judgmentalism. But it’s fixing the Detroit schools which is the solution to the problem. And nobody’s going to do that. A philanthropist several years ago offered to start several charter schools on his own dime. The teachers walked out. Not gonna happen, and the bulging brains in Ann Arbor aren’ t going to try to earn their self-congratulations by actually getting sweaty and tired. They’ll just talk about racism and how AA is the solution.
    I presume you can think of other examples. Or, if not, I can.

    In the Sixties, I was involved in a civil rights organization working in Holly Springs, at Rust College. My wife and I went back there after visiting our son in Memphis. The county building had a plaque to Osborne Bell, sheriff, killed in the line of duty in 1987. He was black. Turns out he was coroner on the case of cops killing a black kid, didn’t hide it, and that triggered the Byhalia boycott.
    You have to be somebody before you’re elected sheriff. The system in north Mississippi was changing fast enough that Bell got to be somebody–haven’t found out much detail–between the time I was there (67 and 68) thinking it was hopeless and whenever he started to become a respected public figure who figured he could run for sheriff and be elected by the citizens of Marshall County.

    At some point, you move racism down the list and look for more immediate problems.
    And if you don’t, people are going to wonder, legitimately.

  69. 68
    Ampersand says:

    Matthew, please don’t call other posters here “shitbags.” Thanks.

    * * *

    Amp. That name study is interesting. Didn’t “Emily” come in last? Some white bread woman’s name was last.
    More complicated than the easy conclusion.

    This response is wrong on so many levels, Richard.

    First of all, you’re just wrong factually: Names that got fewer callbacks from employers than “Emily” include “Aisha,” “Keisha,” “Tamika,” “Lakisha,” and “Tanisha,” for example. Aisha and Keisha — niether of which is a “white bread woman’s name” — were the female names that came in last. (The male names that came in last were “Rasheed” and “Tramayne.”)

    Second, you’re showing a breathtaking ignorance of basic statistics. Even if you were right, and “Emily” got the fewest callbacks — and you’re not — why do you think that would prove anything? If it’s true that just having a “Black” name, on average, makes employers less likely to return your calls — and it is true — then the existence of an outlier doesn’t disprove that, in any way.

    No wonder you don’t think racism exists seem to think racism is unimportant nowadays; you don’t understand basic statistics.

  70. 69
    matttbastard says:

    Matthew, please don’t call other posters here “shitbags.” Thanks.

    Amp, I did not call anyone anything. It was a neutral expression of amazement, as in “holy cow”, or “holy shit”, or “holy flaming shitbags!” Specifically, amazement that, 5 years after I first encountered it @ CalPundit, Richard Aubrey is still (ahem) hustling the same specious argument re: race (and using the same fallacious tactics).

    Somebody should drop Tristero a line…

    Also, unless you are secretly my mother, please do not call me ‘Matthew’ ever again. My preferred pseudonym is (and has been for over a decade) ‘matttbastard’.

    Thank you.

  71. 70
    Mandolin says:

    Amp, I did not call anyone anything. It was a neutral expression of amazement, as in “holy cow”, or “holy shit”, or “holy flaming shitbags!”

    For what it’s worth, I got that.

  72. 72
    Ampersand says:

    My point is that accusations of racism are about 90% bogus and known to be bogus by the accuser.

    Since (assuming you lack mind-reading powers) you have no way of knowing what the “accuser” knows, that’s not a factual statement; it’s just another ad hom. Do you have anything to say that isn’t ad hom?

    There’s no way of arguing with ad hom; you’ve just decided that everyone you disagree with is an Evil Person with Evil Motives. I’m bored by that sort of argument; please confine your points here to more constructive areas.

    Are 90% of claims of racism “bogus”? You don’t give a source for this remarkable statistic, nor do you give any evidence to support your claim. As I’ve pointed out over and over in this thread, there’s no doubt that racism remains a real and important factor in US life today, to the disadvantage of many people of color.

    What’s interesting is that the one time in this thread you’ve referenced a specific, peer-reviewed study, your factual claims about the study’s results were completely wrong (the names study). This suggests that you think that studies finding racism are “bogus” even when their results are clear-cut. Is it possible, therefore, that your impression that claims of racism are nearly always “bogus” represents your bias, rather than representing the actual state of the world?

    Speaking of studies, as I’m sure you know, a recent study found that on average, employers are as likely to hire a white applicant fresh out of prison as they are to hire a black applicant with no criminal record. To me, that sounds like complaints about racist discrimination are not “90% bogus.”

    (Oh, and by the way, not that I’m really very interested in your long anecdotes, but there are a bunch of charter schools in Detroit.)

  73. 73
    Ampersand says:

    Matt, my apologies for both misunderstanding your expression and for getting your name wrong.

    (Since you called me “Amp,” I’m assuming it’s okay for me to call you “Matt” for short.)

    (And as a matter of fact, I am secretly your mother. But I can’t admit that, because if I did, it wouldn’t be a secret, now would it?)

  74. 74
    Ampersand says:

    Regarding “race hustler,” Richard, it seems unlikely that any of the “group of 88” — whom you said are “race hustlers” — became wealthy as a result of signing that statement, or even imagined a prospect of wealth through signing that statement. (I’ve signed many political petitions and statements over the years, and I assure you none have made me a dime.) (Dammit.)

    So contrary to your definition of “race hustler,” the prospect of enrichment is irrelevant to who you label a “race hustler.”

    Since your own examples contradict your definition, and since you can’t name even one current left-wing anti-racist who you don’t consider a “race hustler,” my definition stands: A “race hustler” is just a pejoritive name right-wingers call left-wing anti-racist activists.

  75. 75
    BananaDanna says:

    Does that 90% include “reverse racism” accusations?

  76. 76
    DaisyDeadhead says:

    Richard Aubrey:

    That name study is interesting. Didn’t “Emily” come in last?

    Ummm, no, “Emily” came in first.

    I’m assuming the rest of your “information” is just as accurately remembered.

  77. 77
    FurryCatHerder says:

    Ref Iran: What I want is not exactly the point. The point is what happens when Iran’s centrifuges get going and terrorists start getting nukes. None of that is my doing, nor is it affected by my druthers.

    And this is another reason I’m going to vote for Obama in the general election.

    Well more than half the reason we have conflicts in the Middle East is because we persist in acting like most of those countries are (a) British Colonies, (b) French Colonies, (c) American Colonies now that they are no longer British or French.

    The best thing to happen for Iran in modern history was the Islamic Revolution. It clearly signaled the end of colonial imperialism, which is supposed to be this HUGE American value. We even have a holiday all about ending colonial imperialism — July 4th. Yet time and again, when some country finally casts off the bonds of colonialist oppression, what do we do? Treat them like dirt.

    We’re a bunch of stupid hypocrites and I think Obama understands that better than either of the two main candidates. Certainly better than John “100 Years In Iraq” McCain or Hillary “Nuke ’em ’til They Glow” Clinton.

  78. 78
    FurryCatHerder says:

    Amp writes:

    Since your own examples contradict your definition, and since you can’t name even one current left-wing anti-racist who you don’t consider a “race hustler,” my definition stands: A “race hustler” is just a pejoritive name right-wingers call left-wing anti-racist activists.

    I think who is or isn’t a “race-hustler” can be seen by the results one achieves through their actions as an “anti-racist”.

    By that metric, much of the DNC (and by implication, leftie anti-racists) circa 1980 to 1992, are “race-hustlers”. Having watched the drum-beat of the “Rainbow Coalition” “Let’s all sing Kumbaya” diminish from good white folk, at least race pandering seems to have ebbed from the left.

    In terms of outcome, the right, which makes no pretense to help brown-skinned-people, are less of the “race-hustler” variety and achieve about the same results without the incessant pandering. Not that they achieve much by way of results either, just saying they seem to get about as little done as lefties without pounding their chests …

  79. 79
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Ref. Detroit and charter schools.
    Google……. detroit philanthropist charter schools. or look up Philanthropy News Digest (PND), Oct 8, 03

  80. 80
    Richard Aubrey says:

    Furry. Wrong again. BTW, you don’t get to tell me what my definition is.
    The Gang of 88 at Duke cement their group solidarity be being race hustlers. Houston Baker told the mother of one of the laxers that they were barnyard animals. He has more cred now. You don’t need to be pulling in the benjamins solely to be a race hustler.
    If caught at something corrupt, and your first excuse is that The Man is after you, that’s race hustling.
    So race hustlers improve their positions in some way by crying racism when there is no racism.
    Certainly, improving the lot of the minority is not race hustling. Race hustlers don’t improve the lot of minorities.

  81. Pingback: The Distributed Republic

  82. 81
    Jesse says:

    I am an American who happens to be of European decent. I too take offense to her statements. I also have a degree and work in an office. To me Hillery Clinton has stated that because I am not a blue collar worker that I do not work hard. That really runs against reality. I guess, that I do not count as a hard working American because the 45-60 hours a week that I work (without overtime as I work on salary) is not hard.

    Who is the elitist now Hillary Clinton?

  83. 82
    Ampersand says:

    Richard, I feel that you’ve been given more than a fair chance to state your views here, but that your contributions have ceased to be good conversation. For that reason, please don’t post on this blog again. Best wishes to you.

  84. 83
    Sailorman says:

    Sylph said:…On the contrary, it allows for a very active contingency plan should it appear that we are facing the worst case scenario. But only if. That I’m not advocating going in guns a-blazing to salve the Right’s wounded credibility does not mean I don’t appreciate the threat of a potentially nuclear Iran….

    I don’t think we should invade Iran (madness) but I am deeply troubled by the prospect of Iran obtaining nukes.

    Not that I necessarily believe that Iran would openly use them. Sure, they know that launching a nuclear missile into Israel or elsewhere would not be a winning fight.

    No, what bothers me is that even Iran’s public posture is one of open hatred and anger. And as we all know, what governments do below the radar (ours included) is always worse than what they do openly.

    As I’m sure you know, as recently as a few days ago, the Iranian president railed against Israel. Bring up everything from the Holocaust (“fake”) to the existence of israel (“We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them”)

    I then ask myself: Is this person crazy/angry enough to openly launch a nuclear attack against another nuclear nation? i can’t firmly say “no”, which bothers me (though I would agree it’s unlikely.)

    But I ask the followup: Is this person crazy/angry en0ugh to “accidentally” allow nuclear weaponry or materials to be “lost” or “stolen” or somehow acquired by a third party? Is this person crazy enough to give third parties funding in their attempt to gain more and more powerful weapons to be used in furtherance of terrorist acts? Here, unlike the above, all evidence points to “yes.”

    Making matters worse is that some folks seem to think these sorts of things are stoppable. They’re not.

    You don’t need a nuclear bomb to be delivered by a missile. You don’t even need for it to be especially portable. You don’t need to get it OFF a container ship–though it’d be more damaging if you detonated it in Times Square, there are plenty of container ships, barges, and the like that get damn close to a lot of major cities.

    You don’t need for it to be in a container. You only need to put it in a truck and get it upwind of Jerusalem, in line with all those other truck shipments. And so on.

    And of course, you don’t even necessarily need to make a nuclear bomb, so even if you can’t make the kyrton switches you would be OK. If you have enough material and the right conventional weapon you can make an unusually horrific dirty bomb, which, in the right area, would pretty much render it uninhabitable.

    I am deeply terrified of war in all its forms. But i simply cannot understand how anyone with a good knowledge of how these things actually work would be so blase about ANYONE’S ability to stop it from happening. Especially because we know that there are actually quite a few people who would like it to happen

    I am not a religious man, but if I were, i would pray that Iran doesn’t get nukes. I’d pray that someone–Israel, U.S., anyone–bombs the facility soon.

  85. 84
    sylphhead says:

    I don’t think we should invade Iran (madness) but I am deeply troubled by the prospect of Iran obtaining nukes.

    Agreed.

    No, what bothers me is that even Iran’s public posture is one of open hatred and anger. And as we all know, what governments do below the radar (ours included) is always worse than what they do openly.

    I understand that we should always assume that Iran is doing is worse than what it is that they say they are doing. Any overture or pretense at negotiation should reflect this. And while it has not yet been confirmed that Iran’s nuclear program is a weapons program, the highest levels of our government should be operating under the silent assumption that from minute one Iran’s “nuclear power” program was a weapons program. (It’s counterproductive, however, for this to be our government’s loudly proclaimed, public stance as well, but I’ve already gone over why they’d want to do this even it is counterproductive.)

    I can’t agree that what you said qualifies as a universal, however. Governments such as the US and that of the former USSR always kept up a facade of being more harmless and peaceful than they actually are, because they wanted to build themselves up to be a benevolent empire. However, at the opposite end of the scale, there are rogue regimes like North Korea whose governments would sometimes want to bluster and sound more dangerous and menacing than they actually are. Where in the scale does Iran fit?

    Iran is not a bankrupt dictatorship like North Korea or the former Iraq – it is well integrated into global political affairs and would be helped more than hurt by the appearance of amiability. However, I’m not entirely sure that the quirky cabal ruling Iran has quite gotten that message, and for sure a direct comparison between the US government’s motives and those of Iran’s is doomed to be a hopelessly incomplete one.

    But i simply cannot understand how anyone with a good knowledge of how these things actually work would be so blase about ANYONE’S ability to stop it from happening. Especially because we know that there are actually quite a few people who would like it to happen

    I am not blase. No one in America takes the idea of nuclear weapons lightly. I’m reminded of the first presidential debate between Kerry and Bush; when asked what they thought the greatest single danger to America was, Kerry said in unequivocal terms, “nuclear proliferation”. Bush waxed on about a generic War on Terror, which could mean anything from confronting grave global threats to confiscating more Cokes at the airport terminal.

    And while I can sympathize with the “no nukes, no potential for nukes, no possibility for potential for nukes, no matter the cost” stance, I have reason to distrust those who hammer it most incessantly. Going to North Korea a bit. While North Korea lacks the clear intention of Iran – anyone who thinks North Korea is nearly as hostile to South Korea as Iran is to Israel clearly knows nothing about the political situation in Korea, though I wouldn’t put it past neocons to actually know anything about the world – it surely makes up for it in terms of capability in that they have already demonstrated some actual nuclear ability. What “no matter what the cost”-type scenarios do pro-Iran hawks have on North Korea? What are their thoughts on the matter? Likely, they understand that while it has the potential to become very grave, it can be most likely be handled in a sensible manner without the need for throwing international tantrums – we got through a Cold War the very same way. And the reason the two situations differ is because the political considerations are different. Well, I’m not willing to compromise the best courses of action for political considerations.

    You don’t need a nuclear bomb to be delivered by a missile. You don’t even need for it to be especially portable. You don’t need to get it OFF a container ship–though it’d be more damaging if you detonated it in Times Square, there are plenty of container ships, barges, and the like that get damn close to a lot of major cities.

    Again, I very much doubt that a nuclear device of any sort could be delivered on American soil. I think a lot of people forget, but US intelligence predicted 9/11 months ahead, based on a smattering of suspicious news and fishy flight-school-attending patterns in Florida.

    No country in history has projected power through unconventional tactics and terrorism, which has only ever been a defensive strategy. Iran could cripple America with rampant support of nuclear terrorism, but it could be doing so right now – there are many, many dangerous weapons out there that are easier to obtain and more plentiful than nukes. The major variable in the equation that changes is with nuclear capability is conventional power, something that’s still far off on the horizon for Iran.

  86. Pingback: Round Two! Ding! « Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

  87. Pingback: “The World is a Vampire” - Smashing Pumpkins | Crash the Silence

  88. 85
    Alfred Rosenberg says:

    Since I was the person who coined the term ‘race hustler’ I hereby ressurect this thread for anyone searching the term. It means exactly what it implies.

    Richard sums it up best

    “So race hustlers improve their positions in some way by crying racism when there is no racism.’

    Therefore Al Sharpton by virtue of his ‘shakedowns’ is a race hustler while Bill Cosby is not.

    The only right wing example I can think of right now is the FBI informant and agent provocateur, Hal Turner, who is also incidentally a ‘race baiter’ – he makes up fake stories and tries to provoke his readers and listeners to illegal acts then rats on them to the FBI for cash. All the while asking for donations every two minutes.