Obama and Racism (w/ poll)

I have heard some intelligent people say they're inclined not to vote for Obama because we live in a racist country, and he can't get elected. Now, I have some problems with the whole "electability" strategy, but I don't reject that line of thinking out of hand. There are probably times when it makes sense to be strategic as a voter in that way, though I think it's a risky proposition generally, and often flawed as an approach.

But with this specific line of thinking-- "you shouldn't support Obama because others are racist"-- I would go a step further: It is, effectively, complicit with racism. It is to accept racism, rather than to fight against it.

Which is not to say those who espouse this idea are themselves racist-- not at all. However, they are deferring to a hideous attribute of our nation (and not ours alone, of course)-- which, in this case, is at least partly supposed ("I think too many people are racist for him to get elected"), rather than documented (polls don't bear it out, though I'm not sure that would matter).

How racist is our country? Hard to say, exactly. Would it prevent Obama from winning? I don't think so, but I can't prove it. I do believe, though, that allowing one's own vote to be swayed by this supposed quality in others is, essentially, to become complicit in that racism. It is to accept that tendency rather than to fight against it.

It is not racist-- obviously!-- to support someone other than Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Perhaps you're stirred by Edwards' embrace of the left, or by Richardson's resume, or by Dodd's focus on habeas corpus. Perhaps you think eight years as First Lady gives Clinton an important edge in experience, or that his commitment to single-payer makes Dennis Kucinich the only. These arguments are not all equal, in my opinion, but each, at least, has some merit.

The argument I refer to above does not.

•  Agree? Disagree?

  I'm especially curious to hear from those who disagree with this line of thinking. I'm open to the idea that I haven't thought this through enough.

  by jimrice on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:05:12 PM PDT

  •  jimrice, I'll play devil's advocate and ask

    what people think of:

    "I won't vote for Hillary because a woman won't be elected president"

    or

    "I AM voting for Barack Obama because of his color"

    Any opinions?

    by Yoshimi on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:29:00 PM PDT

    •  First one's a good question.

      I don't see why it would be any different. To suggest that America won't elect a woman is to be complicit with sexism.

      Right?

      The second issue seems to be a whole different kettle of fish-- one I haven't really thought about.

      by jimrice on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:33:21 PM PDT

    •  voting for him because he's black

      Voting for him because he's black is also racist, albeit a more socially-acceptable form of racism.

      by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:36:40 PM PDT

      •  It Comes From Confusion About Whether Racism...

        ...must involve hatred in order to be racism.  And of course, that isn't true.

        A great deal of racism that people have or want to excuse in themselves because it is either neutral or "positive" is in fact quite patronizing.  And patronizing someone, regardless of your good intentions, is always negative.

        I have to say, I personally haven't met anyone who's planning on voting for Obama simply because he's black, but such a reason is incredibly patronizing, if you ask me.

        Vote for who you like.  And as we have a female, black, and Latino candidate in this years field, don't refrain from voting for any of them due to those reasons, or you simply extend and add to the problem, regardless of whether you've decided to behave in that way because "well, OTHER PEOPLE are racist/sexist" or not.

        by dyrrachium on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:42:57 PM PDT

    •  there was a frameshop diary

      about a similar topic yesterday: Frameshop: The Identity Voter

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      by heartofblue on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:57:55 PM PDT

•  Is anyone actually suggesting...

  ...that a person not consider Obama for the reasons you state?

  by dennisl on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:07:30 PM PDT

  •  I've seen it right here at DailyKos.

    by Yoshimi on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:09:06 PM PDT

    •  As have I.

      And a very intelligent friend of mine made the argument  in conversation.

      Sometimes it's only part of a larger picture as to why they support someone else-- but I don't think it should in the picture at all.

      And let me just reiterate that I don't think it's inherently racist to support someone other than Obama, nor do I think racism is motivating large numbers of people to support someone else.

      But this issue has come up on occasion and it troubled me enough that I wanted to address it.

      by jimrice on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:13:56 PM PDT

      •  well there are

        2 parts to the thought process. In part 1, you can think that America is not ready to elect a black man, woman, atheist, gay person, non-human, what have you. That's a fairly neutral statement which might or might not be true. In part 2, you say you won't support this supposedly "unelectable" person because they won't be elected. THIS is the problematic part. There are some years when the writing was on the wall that some candidate for president or another wouldn't get elected (Mondale, Duakakis etc.) Would you vote for their opponent because that person would get elected? There are lots of times when people vote for someone who they know won't win because they support their platform or just like them.

        Also, I hate to sound so cynical, but because 1 vote or a small group of votes doesn't usually change the outcome of a large election, voting for Obama (or Hillary or Kucinich) even if you think them "unelectable" isn't likely to cause them to win all by itself. So you really have to assess the motivations of someone who is calculating that way.

        Now it is true that in "unelectability" in and of itself can make a candidate unattractive (Chuck Pennochio), and that's a legitimate feeling, but that's different. I think what you're talking about is a situation where you genuinely like a candidate, but feel you can't vote for them because of some sort of electability calculus.

        by JMS on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:09:42 PM PDT

    •  I picked 'yes' above

      Because I've had this arguments used against my personal voting choices -- recall MD-Sen.

      I have no intention of calling anyone out personally. But one of the arguments presented repeatedly here was that Cardin was a better bet because Mfume would alienate more conservative white Dem voters in MD.

      I'll give you an example from a diary:

      Mfume has allegations of favoratism and sexual harassment hovering over him from when he was head of the NAACP. This, coupled with the fact that he had five kids out of wedlock (which, by itself, isn't an issue, since he had his kids before he married) will be used against Mfume by the Steele campaign in a narrative. The result will be that many moderate suburbanites in places like Baltimore County and Anne Arundel County (who split tickets) will perceive Mfume (wrongly so, of course) as a Maryland version of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. While Mfume will do better with black voters in places like heavily African-American and Democratic Prince George's County, his gains will be offset by loses in the whiter and more conservative Baltimore suburbs. While Cardin won't do as well as Mfume in PG, he will do well enough in BaltCo and AA to win state-wide.

      Really, all you have to do is substitute "radical Black church membership" for "allegations of ..." above, and you get the argument against Barack.

      These arguments did not convince me that I should not vote Mfume in the MD primary. However, let's not pretend that they're not advanced here at Dkos in favor of "the win".

      by kindertotenlieder on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:22:39 PM PDT

      •  I don't think it's the same

        Most--or at least some--of those issues of Mfume compared to Cardin seem like genuine political or character issues with race involved as only a secondary component, if at all. Either way, a valid political argument could have been made for Mfume or Cardin and, in the end, one of them had to win.

        As of now, the people who are allegedly using this argument against Obama seem to be using it in place of a political argument for not voting for him.

        by dennisl on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:36:05 PM PDT

        •  not a secondary component

          fears of Mfume as the hypersexual black man. Hide the white women and children.

          Same as "Call me, Harold."

          Key word is allegations -- the detractors never provided any evidence.

          How difficult is it for some entity to float an Obama rumor?

          by kindertotenlieder on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:41:29 PM PDT

      •  Such arguments are unacceptable.

        They're appalling whether leveled against Mfume or against Obama.

        by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:57:02 PM PDT

      •  It is not fair to compare Obama---

        to another black candidate, like Mfume or Ford.  Obama is not like those other candidates.  He has proven to have wide appeal that transcends race.  He charms everyone.  And don't repeat Fox Noise's allegation against Barack's church.  It is a liberal Christian church with a mostly black congregation in a mostly black neighborhood south of Chicago, which preaches self-reliance---not real scary.

        by dotster on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:56:00 PM PDT

  •  They state that he's unelectable and then fail

    to state a reason why he's unelectable and duck out the back door when asked for a reason.

    by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:09:39 PM PDT

    •  Wrong for the woman AND for the race argument

      Claiming that Hillary is a woman, and thus unelectable, and then not voting for her.  No difference. These things tend to have a life of their own.  The Polls asking if we are ready for a woman candidate blah blah blah. Both are wrong. You vote for who you think is the best candidate - period.  What you do when you don't vote for someone because you don't think she/he is going to win, is you pile on to the pundits' case for why he/she won't win.  Then it becomes true.   Don't do that!

      by comstockgrants on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:45:04 PM PDT

  •  I've seen it around here...

    and in some offline conversations with friends.   It usually comes up a bit more subtly, as in "I don't think America is ready to elect a black man".

    by rashomon on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:09:58 PM PDT

    •  Which to me

      affirms the racism (and even validates in a way).  I don't think that's true anyway.  It isn't 1960 (or even 1990) anymore.

      by Urizen on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:16:13 PM PDT

  •  Several people

    All liberals, just in the last few days.

    by reef the dog on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:13:40 PM PDT

  •  I have never seen/heard such

    from any anyone who would vote democratic in the first place.

    It is an incredibly weak argument against a candidate, and certainly racist in nature even if the person using it is not.
    No one who thinks things thru would use it with any expectation of support, unless speaking to a racist audience.

    It would be like telling people not to support Hillary because "America is not ready for a woman president", and wouldn't get the votes.

    Wait a minute, people around here are saying that all the time, maybe the diarist has a point... just maybe not the one they expressed.

    by Niniane on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:26:04 PM PDT

    •  Both are said here

      by Yoshimi on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:30:22 PM PDT

      •  Indeed they are, and not just here

        And each time I've seen it, I've responded to it.  It's EXACTLY the argument that many businesses used as an excuse to not hire blacks (we're not racists, but many of our customers are, and we can't afford to alienate our customers), and that landlords made for refusing to rent to blacks (we're not racists, but many of our tenants are, and they'd move out if we rented to blacks).

        In fact, this is exactly the argument that the (ironically, black) South Carolina state senator who is a paid consultant to Hillary Clinton made for not supporting Obama, except that his was even one step worse in its imputation of racism to voters -- not only would they not vote for Obama, but they wouldn't vote for ANY Democrat, and he'd take the entire ticket down in flames with him.

        by leevank on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:58:35 PM PDT

  •  I think it's a question.

    It's a question I answer with an affirmation, that is, that he's electable.  But I certainly can't say for sure that this country is going to elect a black man president. I think he's got a campaign on his hands.

    by Inland on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:24:29 PM PDT

•  Nice diary...

  on a touchy subject.  I don't care for "electability" arguments to begin with...Bill Clinton wouldn't have been electable post-Gennifer Flowers by most evaluations and look where that went...but your diary raises an excellent point.

  by rashomon on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:08:44 PM PDT

  •  Tend to agree

    Kerry pretty much put the "electable" idea to rest, IMO.

    by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:13:49 PM PDT

  •  Thanks. n/t

    by jimrice on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:14:21 PM PDT

•  Some Would Say They Are Disingenuous nt

  by Gooserock on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:08:49 PM PDT

•  Simply unacceptable to offer that as a rationale

  for not voting for him.

  In fact, it's worth a troll-rating.

  It is ILLEGAL to discriminate against black people because their race might be offensive to clients or customers.

  It's discrimination to use someone's race against them, and it's an absolute wrong.

  by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:08:50 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure it's worth a troll rating...

    it's a piss-poor argument IMHO, but still an argument that folks are entitled to make "e.g. America is still a racist country and would never vote for a black man"....but they SHOULD defend it.

    by rashomon on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:13:00 PM PDT

    •  Advocating racial discrimination is

      worth a troll-rating.

      It's a poisonous assertion.

      by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:14:28 PM PDT

      •  Well...

        I don't think acknowleging racial discrimination exists is the same thing as advocating it.  It's a fine line, but an important one.  Still a stupid reason to pick a candidate, though.

        by rashomon on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:17:43 PM PDT

        •  This isn't mere acknowledgement of racial

          discrimination--it's actual, objective discrimination itself.

          The only difference between the person who opposes Obama's nomination because he's 'unelectable' and the one who opposes it because that person hates black people is one of motivation.  In terms of actions, they are identical.  

          by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:20:21 PM PDT

        •  But

          acknowledging racial discrimination exists while at the same time allowing it to influence your decision is harmful.  If you are really opposed to racial discrimination, you don't allow it to make your decision in that regard, you fight against it.

          by GTPinNJ on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:21:14 PM PDT

          •  Good lord...at this point in our nation's

            history...is there ANYONE who believes racial discrimination doesn't exist?

            And how timely for these folks to always seem to bring it up in an Obama diary.

            Just saying...

            by bic momma on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:40:25 PM PDT

            •  Actually, yes...

              a lot of conservatives think (or say, anyway) we live in a "color-blind" society.  They're wrong...but it's what they think.

              by rashomon on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:53:21 PM PDT

              •  I don't think they genuinely believe it

                I think it's just a convenient excuse to justify not dealing with the discrimination that clearly DOES still exist!

                by leevank on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:00:53 PM PDT

              •  "Color-blind" was co-opted by the right

                years ago....they took ML King Jr's. words and twisted them into a smokescreen of bullshit laden propaganda. Some of the biggest proponents of "color-blindness" are dedicated to trying to make life as difficult as possible for people of color.

                by bic momma on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:09:16 PM PDT

      •  I agree

        Let bigots carry their own water.  Anyone who carries it for them is validating their point of view.

        by Urizen on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:17:53 PM PDT

    •  I am getting to the point where I believe

      it IS TR-able. It is bullshit and very often derails the point of a diary. I like the idea of it being an unacceptable comment.

      by bic momma on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:37:00 PM PDT

  •  Not comparable. . .

    It is ILLEGAL to discriminate against black people because their race might be offensive to clients or customers.

    Consider me.  I'm an atheist.  In many situations it would be illegal to discriminate against me for my lack of religious belief.  And yet I myself take into consideration the ability of the various Democratic candidates to communicate with religious people in deciding who to support.  I would be considerably less likely to support someone like myself who doesn't even pay lip service to religious ideas.  

    People have complete lattitude in deciding who to vote for.

    Electability is a valid consideration and race, gender, geographical origin are all factors.  Each voter has to decide for themselves how to weight those factors and what they mean.  That means that some people will make genuinely racist (or sexist) decisions.  Some people will make decisions that help perpetuate those kinds of divisions simply because they want to win the election.  Some people will decide the other way in part because they want to kick sand in the face of the people in the first two groups.

    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:31:03 PM PDT

    •  Since when is the ability to communicate

      comparable to the color of one's skin?

      Should Jews be barred from the office of Secretary of State because of anti-semitism in countries like Saudi Arabia?

      by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:38:36 PM PDT

      •  I'm talking about religious belief. . .

        which, I suppose, is still not the same as the color of one's skin since one can give up one's religious beliefs.  Still, I think most people equate religious belief and race as defining personal characteristics and the black people with whom I've discussed the subject (not a huge sample, given how sensitive the issue is) prefer that their race be viewed as a positive personal characteristic rather than a disadvantage they are forced to live with.

        As for the issue of Secretary of State certainly no one should be barred -- as no one should be barred from running for the Presidency.  Actually selecting a Secretary of State out of all the potential candidates is a different issue.  The issue of who I should want to be selected as the Secretary of State is an even more tangential issue.  I would certainly consider foreign birth, or being the child of immigrants, a postive factor in a Secretary of State.

        I would have great pause, however, in selecting a chief US negotiator in the Middle East who was Jewish (or Muslim, for that matter).  It would have to be an exceptional person to overcome my feelings in that matter.

        by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:50:03 PM PDT

        •  As a threshold matter, there is zero evidence

          that Obama's race prevents him from reaching voters.  None.  

          If people are going to engage in racial discrimination without any evidence, I don't see how they can call themselves progressives.

          by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:52:56 PM PDT

          •  There is a little. . .

            Something like 14% of voters state they would not consider a black candidate.  Of course, it's likely that virtually all of those would never consider a Democratic candidate either, so the number may be meaningless.

            Additionally, I think it's obvious that the actual number of people who won't consider a black candidate is higher than the number of people who admit they won't consider a black candidate.  To think otherwise is naive.

            Of course, those people are offset by the fact that many (although, I assure you, not all) of them would not be voting Democratic anyway and the increased turnout among black voters, and others, who are enthused by the idea of a black President.

            For my part, although I'm not on board with any candidate I'm more inclined towards Obama because of his race.  I think he may well be a breakthrough candidate that could do great things for race relations in the country.  But if I thought that his race would cost the Democrats the election while there was another candidate who could win, I might well support the other candidate.

            by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:01:50 PM PDT

            •  The talking point itself does great harm.

              It becomes self-perpetuating and conventional wisdom if repeated often enough.

              If a wet blanket like Harold Ford can get 48% of the vote in the old Confederacy, then Obama can win Ohio, Florida, and Arizona.

              by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:10:55 PM PDT

              •  Well. . .

                it's my personal belief that Obama is a strong candidate -- if he has any potential problem frankly it's his name rather than his race.  I certainly don't see him as substantially weaker than any of the other frontrunners.  Others, however, may disagree -- I'm not prepared to call them racist just because they add up the numbers differently than I do.  Innumerate, maybe.

                However, in the case of the Ford race do you have any doubt that if he had been exactly the same candidate, but white, he wouldn't be the junior Senator from Tennessee today?  Against Corker?

                by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:15:30 PM PDT

                •  Yes I do. I think he would have won had he been

                  married with two kids, however.  

                  A 30-something bachelor doesn't play too well in areas known for social conservativism.  There's a reason why the family picture is a staple of political campaigns.

                  Every candidate is a mix of electoral positives and negatives.  

                  With Obama, there are so many positives that it's downright foolish to simply say that his race negates everything else.  

                  by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:24:44 PM PDT

                  •  I don't disagree. . .

                    but now you're arguing about the validity of the argument -- not the permissibility of making the argument.

                    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:37:43 PM PDT

                    •  Not sure I get the difference.

                      It's impermissible to argue that Obama as a black man can't be as smart as a white man like Edwards because it's an invalid argument.

                      by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:44:44 PM PDT

                      •  That's correct.

                        But it is permissible (to me, at least) to consider the effect of Obama's race on the broad electorate.  If, practically speaking, he can't be elected because of racial bigotry it's not, in and of itself, bigoted to point that out (making clear here that I don't believe that myself).

                        If you are willing to discuss whether or not Obama has an impossible hurdle to leap in terms of race you are implicitely allowing the argument that the effect of race on voters is a valid concern -- something I don't think you were originally allowing.

                        by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:49:17 PM PDT

                        •  It's permissible to look at a candidate

                          as a whole person to determine if he or she is electable.  Not permissible to break him or her up into subcategories and use one of those subcategories as a DQ.  

                          Obama no doubt has done careful reflection on the subject when crafting his campaign rhetoric and themes.  

                          by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:58:28 PM PDT

                  •  not negates everything

                    It is foolish to say his race "negates everything".  But it's one more obstacle to overcome.  His name not being anglocized hurts him as well, IMHO.

                    by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:57:43 PM PDT

  •  Sure, it's worth a troll rating

    Not only is it implicit endorsement of racism but it is destructive to the Democratic Party which has strong support from racial minorities. I don't like PC, but what's a troll rating good for if we can't stamp out self-destructive, racist material?

    by FishOutofWater on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:33:24 PM PDT

•  You got this part wrong, however:

  Which is not to say those who espouse this idea are themselves racist-- not at all.

  Yes they are.  Objectively they are 100% racist, regardless of whether they have black friends and consider themselves enlightened.  Objectively, they are discriminating against a black man because of his race.

  by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:10:49 PM PDT

  •  Exactly the point I was going to make.

    Whether it's dressed up as an "electability" argument or not, it is still racist.

    And many people, I suspect, use that argument simply as an excuse to do what they want to do anyway, which is vote against the black candidate.

    by GTPinNJ on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:14:23 PM PDT

    •  i'd offer otherwise

      (I support Barack Obama)

      Some of those who would offer such rationale could well be grasping at straws, trying to successfully argue the merit of their own favorite candidate.

      I'd suggest that it's lousy strategy ... hard to account for what some folks think ...

      by wystler on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:22:34 PM PDT

      •  I think that's some of it

        particularly since the "not experienced" thing hasn't taken hold.

        by Urizen on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:06:21 PM PDT

  •  I'm open to this argument, but don't yet agree.

    I'm wary of throwing around the term "racist" too casually for one thing. I think nearly all of us are complicit with racism that occurs everyday. But I certainly don't think we should be consciously complicit, and that's my problem with the line of thinking sketched above.

    by jimrice on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:16:43 PM PDT

    •  Racism is as racism does. If you advocate racial

      discrimination or use someone's race against them, you're a racist.  

      An employer isn't allowed to refuse to hire a sale representative because he worries his customers might be racist.

      We should not engage in behavior that is banned as racist and discriminatory by our own civil rights laws.

      by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:21:59 PM PDT

      •  acknowledgement not same as advocating

        To state that many Americans are racist and therefore will not vote for a non-white person is not the same thing as advocating it.

        by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:30:20 PM PDT

        •  But appeasing the racist vote by giving them a

          candidate they have the stomach for is...

          by Yoshimi on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:31:51 PM PDT

          •  racist pandering ala George Wallace. eom

            by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:34:26 PM PDT

          •  wrong strategy

            It's wrong to do that, but it doesn't mean the person is racist.  They may just be lacking in good voting judgement.

            by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:38:20 PM PDT

            •  If you engage in objectively and unambiguously

              racist acts, then objectively you are a racist.

              Anyone who discriminates against someone on the basis of their race and use their race against them is objectively a racist.

              by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:41:26 PM PDT

              •  you can argue all day

                You can argue technicalities all day, but the fact of the matter is there are plenty of people who are not racist or sexist but are in touch with reality.  The reality of our country is, you can win an election as a black man or white woman (or be a CEO for that matter) only if you're more qualified than a white man.  If you're equally qualified you have little chance.

                by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:44:04 PM PDT

                •  I'm arguing the simple and unassailable truth.

                  If someone refuses to seat blacks at their lunch counter because their regular customers are racist, then they are engaging in racial discrimination and are objectively a racist.

                  Funny how there isn't a goddamn shred of evidence to back up this "a black man can't win" bullshit either.  Please don't talk to me about being in touch with reality.

                  by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:47:37 PM PDT

                  •  not the same thing

                    Not serving a customer because he's black is not the same thing as saying most Americans are racist.  Most Americans ARE racist, whether you like it or not.  Some subtle, some blatant, and not all are racists against blacks.  There are plenty of people who are ok with blacks but are racist against Mexicans or Asians, etc.

                    by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:49:43 PM PDT

                    •  What does that have to do with picking a

                      primary candidate?

                      Much more important than not having racist thoughts is to avoid acting like a racist.

                      by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:54:26 PM PDT

                      •  i'm not a racist

                        You're arguing with me as if I'm personally not voting for someone because of his/her race.
                        What I'm saying is that it's easy for people like me to forget how racist America is.  I live in a very liberal city, and am surrounded by educated, liberal people.  But the reality is most of the country is racist, not as much as they were 40 years ago, but they're still racist.  Blacks get arrested more, serve longer jail sentences, get pulled over more often, don't get promotions, etc.  Are you going to pretend this is not happening?  Pretending people are not racist doens't make racism go away.  The first step towards solving a problem is acknowledging it.

                        by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:04:25 PM PDT

                        •  Are you stating that Obama's race and its

                          electoral implications mean that you won't vote for him in the primary?

                          by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:13:03 PM PDT

                          •  i haven't decided

                            I haven't decided who I'm voting for, because I'm not crazy about any candidates so far.  Clinton isn't liberal-enough for my taste, I think she has the potential to turn into a hawk.  Obama doesn't take a strong-enough stance on some issues; I feel like he dodges controversial issues so he won't hurt his chances of winning.  Edwards concerns me from an economical perspective.  I'm all for getting away from this "Two Americas" thing, but I don't agree with how he wants to go about it.
                            I do know people who are saying Obama won't win because he's half-black, and I can't say that I disagree with them.  There are plenty of people who won't vote for him because of his color, and his name.  I personally believe that Americans are more sexist than are racist, so if anything most swing voters will vote republican if they had to choose between Hilary and the republican candidate, than they would if they had to choose between Obama and the republican candidate.  I could be wrong, of course.

                            by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:24:28 PM PDT

                            •  What percentage of people who won't vote for a

                              black man would vote for Clinton or Edwards?

                              Moroever, Obama's other strengths--including the ability to inspire young voters and peel off Republican-leaning independents gets completely overlooked by those who cite the "a black man can't win."

                              A black man can win, but he can't if people don't give him a chance.

                              by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:27:24 PM PDT

                              •  percentages

                                I haven't seen scientific polls, but we're not talking about total percentages anyway, we're talking about specific groups here.  You have to subtract the devout republicans from the stats before you can analyze the results.
                                A black man can't win if no one gives him a chance, true, but what I'm saying is most people won't give him a chance, because they're racist.

                                by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:30:44 PM PDT

                                •  Most people won't vote for him because

                                  he's black?

                                  Extraordinary claim.  Got extraordinary evidence?

                                  by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:41:28 PM PDT

                                  •  opinions

                                    I thought we were just discussing our opinions, I didn't realize I had to provide "evidence".
                                    It is my opinion that most Americans, to a certain degrees, are racist.  And I'm saying that because I'm not white myself, so it's based on experience, not a scientific study.

                                    by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:43:44 PM PDT

                                    •  Anyone using his race against him

                                      in political debate over the primary nomination sure as hell better be able to back it up with hard empirical facts.

                                      Justifying racial discrimination on the basis of unproven, vague assumptions is not accetable behavior around here.  

                                      by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:46:16 PM PDT

                                      •  i'm not arguing against him

                                        Jeez, what is the matter with you?  I'm not arguing against him.  I'm simply stating that most people in this country are racist.
                                        If you want hard evidence of racism don't talk to me.  I'm not an anthropolgist.

                                        by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:47:57 PM PDT

                                        •  I'm not accusing you of making that

                                          argument.

                                          What I'm saying is that anyone who did needs to provide solid evidence, and if they can't they shouldn't make it here.

                                          by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:51:35 PM PDT

                                          •  solid evidence

                                            Solid evidence of who can win only comes after the votes are counted.  Until then it's all speculation, including your statements.  I haven't seen you present any "evidence" either, nor would I expect you to when stating your opinion.

                                            by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:55:30 PM PDT

                                            •  I don't need evidence to oppose racial

                                              discrimination.  That is the default position of any progressive.

                                              by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:59:09 PM PDT

                                              •  oh forget it

                                                I wasn't talking about my personal choices, or yours, but Americans in general.  You expect me to present evidence that many Americans are racist, but it's ok for you to making sweeping statements because you're "progressive".  What the hell does you being progressive have anything to do with how millions of other Americans vote?  Nothing.

                                                by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 03:04:33 PM PDT

                                            •  I am with Geekesque

                                              To refuse to vote for someone on the grounds that one doesn't think they can win because of their race requires extraordinary evidence to be justifiable. Making this choice based on anything short of substantial, empriical evidence amounts to racist behavior.

                                              by heartofblue on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 02:06:07 PM PDT

                                              •  i wasn't justifying it

                                                That's his accusation of me, not my point at all.

                                                by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 03:05:11 PM PDT

        •  Not voting for Obama because he is black

          is racist discrimination.  Period.

          Anyone who says that it's valid reason for not voting for him in the primary is endorsing racism.

          by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:33:40 PM PDT

          •  i don't vote for ulta-liberals sometimes

            I'm very liberal, but in national elections I would think twice before voting for someone too liberal because I don't think they stand a chance.  Does that make me a conservative?  No, it's just being strategic.  You're choosing the lesser evil, instead of being idealistic and losing it all.

            by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:40:37 PM PDT

            •  Ideology =! race.

              Again, anyone who decides not to support a candidate because of that candidate's race is engaging in racial discrimination.

              Period.

              End of story.

              People who engage in racial discrimination are racist.

              by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:45:46 PM PDT

              •  define "engage in"

                I agree that anyone who "engages in" racial discrimination is racist, but I don't agree with your definition of engaging in something.

                by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:47:47 PM PDT

                •  Discrimination is an objective act. It doesn't

                  matter WHY you discriminate against a particular race, only that you do so.

                  If you refuse to support Obama in the primary because of his race, directly or indirectly, then you are discriminating against him on the basis of his race.

                  If you refuse to support Clinton in the primary because of her gender, directly or indirectly, then you are discriminating against her on the basis of her gender.

                  It is complicity with and active support for the KKK's mentality.

                  by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:51:08 PM PDT

                  •  oh please

                    If you're equating not voting for someone in a primary with being a KKK supporter than most Americans are KKK supporters.  You're taking it too far.

                    by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:55:18 PM PDT

                    •  If someone decides to vote against him

                      because he's black, then that person's voting behavior is indistinguishable from a that of a KKK member.  Their subjective motivations may differ, but objectively their behavior is equally racist.

                      by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:58:31 PM PDT

                      •  i most certainly disagree

                        I'm not going to go around treating people who don't vote for Obama the same as KKK members, although you may chose to do so.

                        by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:07:24 PM PDT

                        •  well that's the end of that.

                          Willfully reducing your opponent's argument to an absurdity after doing practically nothing to refute his arguments is a sure sign that you've lost.  Aww.

                          by Pegasus on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:12:13 PM PDT

                          •  i wasn't trying to "win"

                            And he's the one who came up with the "absurdity" of comparing not voting for Obama with supporting KKK, not me.

                            by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:25:48 PM PDT

                        •  A black person who's refused a job or

                          an apartment to rent doesn't really care if it's because the diner owner or landlord has a white sheet in his closet or if it's because that diner owner is afraid of antagonizing white customers or if that landlord is afraid of lowering his property values.

                          by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:14:54 PM PDT

                          •  again, not same thing

                            I don't believe not voting for a candidate is the same thing as refusing a person service in a diner.  Everyone has a right to life and liberty, but not everyone has a right to get elected to office.

                            by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:27:52 PM PDT

                            •  So, refusing to vote for a black man

                              because of his race isn't full-fledged discrimination?

                              Running for office, by the way, IS a constitutional right--unlike working at a diner or renting a particular apartment.

                              by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:30:08 PM PDT

                              •  running but not winning

                                Running for office is a right, but winning is not.  At the end of the day, it's up to the candidate to win votes.  If he/she is not able to win voters over you cannot blame the voters.

                                by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:38:12 PM PDT

                                •  So, I can't blame voters who refuse to vote

                                  for someone of African descent?

                                  by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:39:14 PM PDT

                                  •  it's their choice

                                    They have a right to vote for someone because he's white, just as they have a right for vote for someone because he's christian.

                                    by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:41:45 PM PDT

                                    •  Ann Coulter has a right to call John Edwards

                                      a faggot.  Does that mean I can't blame her for exercising her free speech rights?

                                      by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:42:56 PM PDT

                                      •  wrong but allowed

                                        It's not nice of her, but she should be allowed to call people names if she wants.  I don't agree with her, and would never buy her book, but I don't believe in censorship either.

                                        by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:49:26 PM PDT

                                        •  I can blame her for saying it though, right?

                                          Just like I can blame people who refuse to support a candidate on the basis of that candidate's race.

                                          by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:59:52 PM PDT

                                          •  you can do whatever you want

                                            I just don't agree with all your statements.  

                                            by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 03:07:26 PM PDT

                    •  Kudos to Greekesque

                      in this thread for changing my mind on the subject.  I had been (with great hesitation) on the side saying that if people are so chickenshit as to make the cold calculation that America's too racist to elect a black man in a general election, then fine for those chickenshit pansies.  But Greek's point, which nobody has yet to really refute, is excellent.  And double kudos, Greek, for sticking to it over, and over, and over, and over...

                      by Pegasus on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:00:54 PM PDT

                      •  Second that Kudos!

                        I didn't need my mind changed, but, good job dude!

                        by Urizen on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:11:08 PM PDT

  •  If you are going to be that sensitive

    ...to issues of racism, you should consider the racism of your statement above.  Your statement ("have black friends") is clearly talking about white people or at least non-black people, even if it doesn't say so explicitly.  And the idea that "America is not ready to elect a black president so don't vote for one" is not just a white idea--plenty of black people are supporting Hillary for just that reason.  Please don't suggest that racism, or even racism against blacks, is purely a white thing or a non-white thing, by your omission of racism ideas amongst blacks.  Or do you think that when black people do it, it's just a matter of practicality?

    by Subversive on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:34:33 PM PDT

    •  Black people can be racist against

      other black people.

      There are anti-semitic Jews and homophobic homosexuals.

      by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:35:41 PM PDT

      •  I don't know if I agree with

        that, but we may have different definitions.  Racism against blacks is part of an institutionalized system tied to historical conditions of the European slave trade and slavery in America.

        I know, as a white person, I would feel unqualified to ever say a black person was "racist against other black people."  But we may have different definitions.

        by TomP on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:40:38 PM PDT

        •  There are black police officers who engage

          in racial profiling.

          If you discriminate on the basis of race, you're a racist.  It's not terribly complex.

          by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:43:38 PM PDT

        •  why?

          I know, as a white person, I would feel unqualified to ever say a black person was "racist against other black people."  But we may have different definitions.

          by Buffalo Girl on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:55:41 PM PDT

      •  And self-hating caucasians :)

        But, ok, I'm satisfied.  My bad.

        I should mention that I am white, I supported Deval Patrick but not because of his skin color, but that I think Barak Obama is too short on experience and I would support him only in a two-way race against Clinton, which I don't believe to be our present situation.  

        I actually think one of the strongest things Obama has going for him as a Presidential candidate is his skin color, I just don't think it is enough to make up for his lack of experience.  I think he would make a good VP candidate though.  So I guess I have to confess that my personal racism includes thinking that skin color still matters a little and that it will be a nice thing when someone who is nonwhite wins our country's top office.

        by Subversive on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:45:34 PM PDT

        •  Most folks around here support some form

          of affirmative action or diversity program, I would wager.

          That's a whole different ball game than excluding someone because they're an historically oppressed minority.

          by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:48:48 PM PDT

          •  Not around here of course, but

            ...there are people, including some black conservatives, who consider affirmative action to be a form of racism.  I don't agree with them, but that (alone) is not enough to make me call them racists.  For the same reason, I'm not going to call people racists just because they think voting for Obama would be throwing their vote away because they think that other people in our society are not yet ready to support a black president.  We don't formally apply affirmative action to elected positions and people have the right to decide for themselves who they think is electable and just how much that matters to them, even to the point of self-destructive voting behavior.  And it's ok for people to have an honest difference of political opinion every once in awhile, without having to ascribe vile underlying motives to one another, you know.

            by Subversive on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:15:28 PM PDT

            •  I've been stressing the word "objectively'

              which means the real-world effect.  Subjectively a person may lack racist attitudes but they may still behave in a racist manner.

              On a broader scale, there is institutional racism.

              by Geekesque on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:31:35 PM PDT

      •  Yes and many

        minorities are racist as well. White folks don't have that market cornered.

        by comstockgrants on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 01:47:53 PM PDT

•  I've had a couple people on the street ask,

  "Do you really think he can be elected...

  (long pause followed by my blank stare)

  ...um because of his lack of experience?

  by Yoshimi on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:10:57 PM PDT

  •  it's not necessarily racist

    ... to ask the question

    plenty of cynical folk out there, no? it's the ultimate cynical question concerning the Dem candidates in 2008 ... with the question of Ms. Clinton's gender being the penultimate ...

    by wystler on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:24: