Will Racism or Leftism Be the Cause of an Obama Defeat?
May 6th, 2008 at 03:22pm Mark Noonan
Richard Kim in the ultra-left Nation wonders how Hillary feels about her “white racist” supporters:
…in the name of another personal quality–honesty–I’d like Hillary Clinton to make the following statement: “Though my opponent has run a terrific campaign, in primary after primary, I have proven that I am the more electable candidate. I am more electable because I am white. Barack Obama–Wow!–he’s certainly inspired a lot of hope, but as voters in Indiana and North Carolina make up their minds, as the superdelegates make up their minds, they should remember that Barack Obama is black. They should also remember that a whole lot of white working-class Americans are racists. White racists are an important part of the Democratic Party, and time and time again, they’ve supported me because I am white. I am ready on day one to govern as your white American president.”
If this sounds–excuse the pun–beyond the pale, it’s because it is. Or at least, it should be. But the alleged racism of white working-class voters has become, through her campaign’s own actions, the last remaining rationale for Clinton’s candidacy.
Are white working-class voters really racist? How many and where? If a significant number of them are, should Democrats really court them on the terms of their racism? These are questions worth asking since, apparently, a lot of Democrats think they’re valid. But as long as the Clinton campaign continues to code the fact that it is counting on a base of white racist support, we’ll never have this conversation.
Sounds to me like some on the left are starting to pre-spin the reason for an Obama defeat (today and/or in November) as because of racist, white Americans. But is this really likely to be the case? I don’t believe so - what the left ignores or pretends doesn’t matter is that Obama egregiously insulted all Americans who aren’t black voters and/or upper class white voters. Obama and Co can spin it until the cows come home, but he really did call average Americans bitter, gun-carrying, fearful, religious bigots - and when coupled with his pastor’s obscenly racist and anti-American rhetoric (which rhetoric, of course, is believed 110% by people at the Nation, for instance), it is a natural that the insulted constituency would gravitate towards the only other Democratic alternative - Hillary Clinton; had there been a more moderate black candidate instead of or in addition to Hillary, then these middle and lower class white voters might well have gone for that candidate.
Are there racists in America? Of course. Are they, on the whole, likely to be either GOP or Democratic voters? No. Your basic racist - and I mean the real “I think black people are inferior” sort of KKKer racism - thinks that our government is the Zionist Occupation Government and that the votes are all just a sham anyway. These really are the bitter people who wallow in hatred - and not just of black people, but of Jews, Catholics, hispanics, Asians…everyone who isn’t of the Anglo-Saxon extraction and committed to the white supremacy movement. In 2004, these people weren’t pondering - in the Democratic race - as to whether or not they should back Kerry or Edwards. Race isn’t a factor in this - except on the left, which is desperate for an explanation other than Obama’s leftist extremism for Obama’s electoral troubles, and possible defeat.
I still think that Obama will be the Democratic nominee - the Democratic powers that be are desperately afraid of what will happen if the first credible black candidate is denied the Democratic nomination; but if Obama loses, it won’t be because white racists pushed ultra-liberal Hillary over the top, but because Hillary has proven herself the more dogged campaigner who both took nothing for granted nor despaired when things went wrong. And if Obama does still get the nomination and goes down to a McGovern-like defeat in November, it still won’t be racism as the cause but the continued and strong rejection of ultra-leftist ideology by the majority of the American electorate.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Racial Issues
26 Comments
1. OhioOrrin | May 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
whites voting 4 whites and blacks voting 4 blacks is the same behavior.
call it what u will….
but call it the same.
2. hermie | May 6th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I wonder how Obama would be able to spin the ‘racism’ thing, when he stands alongside Robert “KKK’ Byrd, and even fundraises for him.
According to Obama, even an unproven ‘insensitivity’ to minorities is considered grounds enough to initiate filibusters of POTUS appointees. How does he explain his embrace of a former Klansman to his followers?
3. Kahn | May 6th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Racist-socialist?
Sounds like National Socialism, doesn’t it?
1. Control the press and entertainment
2. Pick a group to blame everything on (whites)
3. Single out particular people within the group for special hatred (conservatives)
4. Deride EVERYTHING the target group says or does (have at it regulars)
5. Seize the guns
6. Seize control of incomes and where possible assets
7. Redistribute income to buy loyalty
8. Propagate violence against opponents (MULTIPLE incidents last election of Republican offices being burned, ransacked (by a union), shot into. Republican vehicles vandalized to the point of non-usability on election day.)
9. demonize opponents (Bushbots, FAUX News, Evil conservatives, NEOCONS, etc.)
10 Suppress opposition (attack speakers with shouts and chants, and violence when that doesn’t work).
11. Give some isolated example of you being harmed when faced with an overwhelming list
12. Replace religion with a “noble cause” only solvable by “the state” (Global Warming)
Hey… it IS National Socialism!
4. Mark Noonan | May 6th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Kahn,
Over the past week I’ve been reading Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” - a fascinating read, and entirely in tune with what I’ve been saying for ages…its all of a piece: socialism, communism, facism, Nazism…all of them stemming from Rousseau, given its first political manifestation by Robespierre and the Jacobins during the French Revolution and just continued on and on into the modern world, where “liberals” and “progressives” are just the latest version of that same false philosophy which says, among other things, that the material is all there is; that human beings are perfectable; that people are bad because of bad institutions…by calling it “liberal fascism”, Goldberg pressed a lot of buttons on the left, and that is a good thing - hopefully at least some of them will wake up and realise that by being on the left, they are being no different - in substance - from the Jacobins of 1792, the Communards of 1871, the Checkists of 1918, the Fascisti of 1922, the Storm Troopers of 1933…while our liberals will deny it, the plain fact of the matter is that the 60’s radicals were, with long hair and drugs, not fundamentally different from Mussolini’s thugs, with short hair and no drugs.
5. bagni | May 6th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
markalicious
kahnboi
nice list
the planetary politicos wonder?
replace #5 with ’seize the oil”
tweak #12 with “make religion the only cause”
and you’ve got a 12 pt martian manifesto for the other side!
how ’bout it???
6. Mark Noonan | May 6th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
bagni,
Ah, but if we have religion - meaning, in our context, Judeo-Chrisitanity - then we will not have anything evil going on…it is what makes us best, even though we can still be very bad…as we step further away from it, we get not just bad at times, but horribly malformed in a moral sense…to the point where some of us actually think that abortion is ok. See?
7. Doug | May 6th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Since Obama and Hillary are pretty similar in ideology, I’d have to say to have any proof that there is racism you’d have to have ethnic groups voting in mass. Say one ethnic group votes 85%+ for a particular candidate that is the same ethnicity as themselves….then that could mean that there is some racism amongst that group.
If there is a lesser, say 60-40 split, you’d have to assume that since either candidate is equal, then for the most part the difference could be factors other than racism, though some may still be there.
However if it’s an 85-15 or 90-10 split, then, yes, of course it shows racism.
Can’t wait for the exit polling to see which groups in the Democratic party are racists … will it be the blue collar white folks or a different group altogether?
8. FmrMarine | May 6th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
>>>>No. Your basic racist - and I mean the real “I think black people are inferior” sort of KKKer racism<<<
OR
The nation of islam……
or
the naacp
or
rainbow-push -
or
trinity “church”
I have always been amazed how blacks are expected to vote lockstep donk like mindless lemmings….IE “the black vote”,
but if whites voted this way we would be considered the biggest racists alive.
unbelievable what America is becoming.
9. FmrMarine | May 6th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Kahn:
this is a good related article
The Nazis Were Marxists
By Bruce Walker
The Nazis were Marxists, no matter what our tainted academia and corrupt media wishes us to believe. Nazis, Bolsheviks, the Ku Klux Klan, Maoists, radical Islam and Facists — all are on the Left, something that should be increasingly apparent to decent, honorable people in our times. The Big Lie which places Nazis on some mythical Far Right was created specifically so that there would be a bogeyman manacled on the wrists of those who wish us to move “too far” in the direction of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater.
The truth about the Nazis was that they were the antithesis of Reagan and Goldwater…
Ed. Note: Link to excellent article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_nazis_were_maxists.html
10. Eric T | May 6th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I can now see the wisdom in John McCain not wanting to make an issue of Rev. Wright.
The KKKlintons and all those classic old school democrats, have a legacy of 150 years of racism that the Republicans just can’t compete with.
To be honest, I like some of Obama’s ideas and would rather see him win than have to extend the arm and yell, Hail Hitlery, Queen of high taxes, gun bans, abortion, and gay marriage.
11. js | May 6th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
does it matter who they pick…two losers are still losers…no matter how you toss it….
12. FmrMarine | May 6th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
JS
Two - MARXIST losers LOL
13. Eric T | May 6th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
js-
your right, both are just vessels for George Soros.
14. Mark Noonan | May 6th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
FmrMarine,
All too true - but we’ve let them get away with it, haven’t we? Some how or another we’ve got to get everyone to understand that “ultra-conservative” means something along the lines of Franz Josef…or, even better, the Christian Church. All of it - Nazism, fascism, communism, etc, etc, etc - are just varied species of thought designed to be in opposition to the Judeo-Christian roots of our civilization.
15. bagni | May 7th, 2008 at 12:30 am
markligion
the spatial spiritual types are bewildered again
at your statement
“if we have religion - meaning, in our context, Judeo-Chrisitanity - then we will not have anything evil going on”
obviously you’ve drunk too much wine from your chalice….???
16. What? | May 7th, 2008 at 3:30 am
Kahn,
I could easily make a list accusing you of pretty much the same transgressions. Don’t paint the right as some holier than thou political movement when you know full well it is more than willing to roll in the mud. I mean, come on, you are saying the Left name calls but in the same breath you call the left Nazis! What a joke.
Mark,
Perhaps you would like to explain why hippies were just like Nazis storm troopers.
You write this:
“where “liberals” and “progressives” are just the latest version of that same false philosophy which says, among other things, that the material is all there is; that human beings are perfectable;”
Last time I checked hippies were not atheists or materially driven and were not seeking human perfection like the Nazis. They were actually spiritual and opposed to the materialism of their parent’s generation. Also, the goal of bettering society through increased government spending on services is not the same as the genetic perfection Nazis sought. To eqaute the two is intellectually dishonest.
Trying to label people as Nazis based on modern political views is a fruitless endevour. The inquiry is elsewhere. The common trait amongst all totalitarian regimes is a consolodation of power in small group. Once these small groups take control, they are able to implement policies that a democratic government would likely not implement. Ideological followers of the group would act as enforcers. The rest of society falls in line because they realize the punishment will be severe if they do not.
Regardless of who the small group is, they always claim to be acting for the greater good of society. They often believe it and many citizens do as well. In this sense, they are offering government as the solution to problems.
However, the Nazis, Chinese Communist, and Italian Facisists also stressed the self-determination and uniqueness of the individual as the key to the greater success of the country. Totalitarianism then sprouts from a government which stresses its own ability to improve the lives of its citizenry while also pandering to the national ego by emphasizing the greatness of its citizens.
Simply because totalitarinism stresses the ability of government to improve people’s lives does not mean that government cannot. It also doesn’t mean that implementing government programs necessarily leads to totalitarinism. If this were the case, the world would have brutal Canadian and French dictatorships.
Similarly, the right’s constant pandering of how wonderful and unique and fantasitc Americans (especially conservative Americans) are does not mean we’ll wake up in Nazi Germany one day.
Sadly, Goldberg has written a book knowing that there is a built in audience who will shovel this garbage down their own throats thus providing him with more donut money. If only I could sell out and write a book about how liberals are all Satanists, I would be able to retire.
Anyways, the overall point is to drop the name calling. It is childish and does not convince anyone to rethink their views.
17. OperationChaos | May 7th, 2008 at 11:41 am
No need to name-call, What?–anyone with a working brain knows how dangerous modern-day liberalism is.
Anyone with a working brain…
18. What? | May 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
OperationChaos,
Instead of just saying liberalism is dangerous, you have to explain why.
Oh wait, since Rush can’t do it you probably can’t either. Also saying liberals are Nazis is not explaining why liberals are dangerous.
Since you are a Rush listener let me ask you, do you ever get tired of being pandered to by the right-wing media? Do you ever get tired of them reassuring you that everything you think you know is true? Do you ever wonder why they seem so utterly facinated with every caller even though the callers make the same point over and over?
Listening to these radio shows I don’t understand how the audience believes the speaker or suffers through it. I guess it is the need to feel self-important.
19. Kahn | May 7th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
bagni-khatoey, well yes. Except those would be hypothetical replacements. Yes?
20. Kahn | May 7th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
What? Well, I guess you “could” create such a list. i “could” be spending the night spending my lottery money. I “could” be sleeping with a Brazilian super-model. I “could” be wondering which of my Nobel prizes is most meaningful to me.
But, you did not, and I am not.
Point?
The National Socialist Party actually has much in common with radical American leftists. Hatred, derision, demonization of enemies, a tendency toward violence against political enemies, a belief in the good and power of the “state”.
Whereas conservatism stresses individual liberty AND responsibility. Though some individuals may act in a way anti-ethical to these beliefs, it is not condoned. Nor is it a central tenet of the philosophy. I note that not all Republicans are conservative and not all conservatives are Republican.
Thought for the day: Why wasn’t Rev. Wright a problem for Obama in North Carolina? Why did he get 90% of the black vote? Answer - because MANY blacks agree with Wright. Many think we did engineer AIDS, we do import drugs, and we are evil. They are kind of hoping that Obama REALLY, SECRETLY agrees with THEM.
Remember - who thought and still think the O.J. was innocent? Do you believe that by the way?
21. What? | May 7th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Okay Kahn,
1. Control the press and entertainment (Fox News and all other NewsCorp Outlets, Weekly Standard, Publisher who published Mark’s book)
2. Pick a group to blame everything on (college educated people (liberals), minorities, illegal immigrants)
3. Single out particular people within the group for special hatred (Liberals)
4. Deride EVERYTHING the target group says or does (See Fox News, Right wing radio)
5. Seize the guns (Last time I checked, there are still plenty of guns out there and no viable movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment)
6. Seize control of incomes and where possible assets (Okay, a very conservative Supreme Court just expanded emminent domain to allow govrnment to take your home and give it to a private individual. Since the Reagan years, wealth has become concentrated in the top 1%. )
7. Redistribute income to buy loyalty (So providing services = income redistribution. I guess we should get rid of welfare and unemployment)
8. Propagate violence against opponents (Pro-life advocates killling doctors and bombing clinics)
9. demonize opponents (You calling liberals Nazis. Writing a book called liberal fascism)
10 Suppress opposition (Evidence of blacks being kept from polling stations in the South)
11. Give some isolated example of you being harmed when faced with an overwhelming list (Huh?)
12. Replace religion with a “noble cause” only solvable by “the state” (This makes no sense. How is global warming replacing religion? Who worships global warming? Who prays to global warming?)
Then you write this:
“Whereas conservatism stresses individual liberty AND responsibility.”
You don’t stress individual liberty. You want laws against gay marriage and gay sex. Jeremiah wants to imprison them. You want Christianity taught in the schools. Mark wants to set the cirriculum in public schools.
Responsibility - this is a joke. How about Bear Sterns? Shouldn’t it take responsibility for its failure instead of getting a government buy out? (Supported by Bush) How about the farming industry that enjoys government subsidies? (A Republican favorite, why do all those rural counties go Republican?)
How about another definition of responsibility? One that requires those who reap the most from our society to be responsible for bettering it through paying a fair tax rate.
Also, if you really believe that black people are secretly hoping Obama will win and oppress white people, you are a very sick person. I can tell you are one of those angry white men who never really agreed with the whole Civil Rights Movement.
Although I believe OJ did it, I believe there was reasonable doubt to acquit.
Also, doesn’t it bother you that a known racist, Mark Fuhrman, is a analyist on Fox News? Shouldn’t you be angry with him and the LA police department for causing OJ’s acquittal?
Keep trying, Kahn. Someday you may make a point that I can’t easily refute. I hope you don’t mind if I choose not to hold my breath.
22. Kahn | May 8th, 2008 at 1:58 am
What, FOX again? ONE network! Compared to CBS (forged documents), ABC (hires all former Democrat administration people), NBC (publicly declared for Obama), PBS/NPR (shared donor lists with Democrats), MSNBC, CNN, the major newspapers in all the major cities, Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia…..
You have a TINY example of a counter-culture revolt. One network that isn’t even conservative. It’s neutrality just SEEMS conservative compared to blatantly liberal news outlets masquerading as neutral.
Oh - and talk radio. Thanks for brining that up. NOT evenm news. Though by no means is it all conservative - it is publicly described as political opinion and analysis. AND - liberals seek to control it. Example, though Rush Limbaugh is loved by the troops overwhelmingly, LIBERAL politicians want him removed from the military radio networks. Why? The troops love him and want his show. So why fight him? Or this threat to return to the “fairness doctrine”??? Give me a break. The press is overwhelmingly and blatantly liberal.
Nice try though (to use your words).
Oh - and polls show that SIZABLE black minorities (25%-50% depending on the particular topic) believe in the crap Wright spews.
oh - and to pop you bubble. Republicans in Congress voted at a higher rate for the civil rights laws than did Democrats. It was the cooperation between Republicans and northern Democrats that made these laws possible. It’s just that we don’t believe that the cynical plan to addict inner city minorities to government money was or is a good idea. For THAT we are branded as racist. Thanks.
Look at the cities that “liberals” have ruled for decades to see how great a job you do: D.C., Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc.. YOUR way leads to a permanent underclass.
And YOUR way on immigration leads to a permanent underclass of undocumented workers with limited rights. Leaving the status quo actually creates a class with rights similar to a slave labor force. Lower wages, limited rights, manipulatable. I don’t think that the “liberal” approach to illegal immigration is very humane at all.
23. Mark Noonan | May 8th, 2008 at 3:00 am
What?,
Sorry, but you are exceptionally out to lunch - all Goldberg has done is clearly describe a phenonmena we on the right have been observing with dismay - and fighting hard against - for more than two centuries. Your view that the facists and the hippies were fundamentally different likely stems from the shallowest of all sources - the purely visible. Fascists wore uniforms and hippies didn’t - but what is the hippie garb other than a uniform? Hippies were just as slavishly conformist and collectivist as the most ardent member of the Komsomol or Hitler Youth.
Who was the non-conformist in Nazi Germany? Count Claus von Stauffenberg - a very well educated, very well mannered, devoutly Christian member of the old German aristocracy…it was he, and a few others like him (some of whom, indeed, were liberals…but not in the sense of modern American liberalism) who refused to conform. How many were the communists, socialists and allegedly avant-guard iconoclasts who made their peace with Hitler!
To you on the left he would seem, at first glance, the likely Nazi - the quintessential conservative who would support Hitler…but he wasn’t; it was his conservatism which led him to the enormous truth that Hitler had to be stopped, even if it meant his death and his beloved Germany’s defeat in war. His non-conformity wasn’t of the silly kind based on clothing and musical taste, but upon the only thing that matters - the non-conformity of the human soul to created things and its ultimate allegiance to its Creator.
Why do we on the right disparage, say, this recent craze to have ourselves pierced and tatooed as if we were ignorant savages? Because we fear free expression? No - because it is rude to so impose yourself on others…decency and good manners command that we present ourselves to others - all others - in the most kind and comfortable way…so, we groom ourselves and wear proper clothes…and when we wish to express ourselves, we shall do so…in words, which will allow the other person to enter into our thoughts…
You on the left have been fighting a myth, in service of a myth - a mythological conservatism-cum-fascism out to destroy in defense of a liberalism-cum-progressivism attempting to bring about the bright, new dawn for humanity. Actually, what you’ve been doing is attacking all that is decent, in order to give power to all that is depraved.
24. What? | May 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
First off Mark,
I never called conservatives Nazis. Why are you defending yourself when you have not even been attacked?
You fail to answer the question Goldberg failed to answer. How are hippies like Nazis? you actually seem to conclude hippies were not a threat at all when you write:
His non-conformity wasn’t of the silly kind based on clothing and musical taste, but upon the only thing that matters - the non-conformity of the human soul to created things and its ultimate allegiance to its Creator.
This line says that hippies were just were kids acting out by wearing different clothes and listening to music their parents didn’t like. Earlier in the post you said they are Hitler-youth. Which is it? Are they silly non-conformists or are they budding fascists?
I can see despite your claim to have thought thisa argument out, you really have not. Take some time and get back to me.
And to say organized religion does not require conformity from its followers is just nonsense. You are walking proof it does. You follow the rules set forth by the Church. How is that not conforming? Certainly religious conformity is far more dangerous than the hippie movement. Look at the cult down in TX.
Kahn,
Google, Yahoo and Wikipedia? Produce some evidence friend. Also, there are major conservative newspapers as well. Washington Times/NY Post ring a bell?
But you miss the point I was making. There is bias in the media but it is on both sides. That NewsCorp, the larget media conglomorate is run by an open conservative is glaring proof. Also, that Rush has an audience is proof.
My goal in making the list was to illustrate that the right is as guilty of the sins as you accuse the left of being guity of committing.
So, by not refuting my accusations about the right and just repeating how awful the left is you are not even arguing the issue. That is why you lose.
As for you list of cities, I would also put San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Portland, and Boston on that list. These cities seem to be doing great. Also, LA is not excatly run by liberals. Re-examine that attempt.
Also, learn to cite polls instead of just claiming they exist.
Next, you are so wrong on the civil rights movement. It is true Republicans were required to pass the legislation. However, many southern democrats, disgusted by what their party had done in passing the CRA, defected to the Republican party. This is how Nixon took the White House in 68 and 72 and why the South is still a conservative bastion. Keep trying.
Lastly, it is awesome how you attack illegal immigration and prove my point that you attack targeted classes. Good job for looking foolish.
25. What? | May 8th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Also Kahn writes this:
“Oh - and talk radio. Thanks for brining that up. NOT evenm news. ”
This is the way Hannity and Limbaugh justify their existence and bias. It is such a thin illusion.
Both act as conduits between the government and the populace. (Hannity has interviewed Bush, Rove and Cheney. He has had every Republican presidential candidate on his show besides Ron Paul.) They also report news. That they provide opinion with that news is irrelevant to the fact they are still a news source for people. Hannity is on a NEWS NETWORK in primetime. Hannity and Rush even call theselves THE ALTERNATIVE NEWS MEDIA (despite being owned by Murdoch)
Kahn, for your sake I will believe you realize all of this and are simply hoping no one you quote this weak argument to has the brain to question it. I hope you you have enough of a mind to realize the sham these loudmouths are playing.
26. Kahn | May 8th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
What - but Hannity and Limbaugh admit they are biased. They do not pretend to be pure news. The radio dial has leftists and TV and print are saturated with them. Usually, they pretend to be unbiased. What is really ominous is that leftists also control Google and other search engines and have “editor” power at Wikipedia, which means they have ultimate control to override posts they disagree with.
Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News. Pretty small compared to ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, HeadLine News, CNN, MSNBC. AND the liberal and anti-conservative bias is not present just in the news shows. It permeates the talk shows, the news, and the entertainment shows (The West Wing ring a bell?). Then there’s the radio networks where the major news organizations do the hourly and half hourly news. There are almost all the major newspapers and most of the major news magazines. The press is OVER 90% card carrying Democrat. Even FOX News actually has many Democrats on the payroll.
You have a handful of examples.
But has FOX ever shared donor lists with the Republican Party (PBS and NPR DID with Democrats). Has Limbaugh ever fabricated government documents to attack a major Democrat (CBS did to attack Bush two weeks before an election). Just who gave that Maine sheriff with info on Bush’s drunk driving arrest Nina Totenburgs phone number?
You are actually complaining that there is ANY opposition speech on the air, and that is EXACTLY my point. You have fascist tendencies when it comes to speech sir. You do. Deal with it.