To both sides on Race: Don't go there. That way madness lies.

Don't go there. That way madness lies.

It's not too late. Though the last week or so has seen endless diaries here trying to accuse Obama of playing the race card first (all based on one discredited and disowned memo from the South Carolina primary cited in Huffington Post) the broader picture emerging is of Hillary using race as the last card...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ 2008/apr/28/hillaryclinton.usa

I don't want to believe it. I definitely don't think that her and Bill are racists. But there are some principles so important to the health of US civil society that you should never break them in the pursuit of power. I don't for a moment believe that the bulk of Hillary supporters are racist, and I'm hoping the counter reaction - accusing Obama of being a racist too - will soon die down. But point scoring on such a historically catastrophic issue, one that underpins the tragedies of slavery, civil war, segregation and the worst political violence of the 60s, is like juggling nitro with glycerine

Don't go there. That way madness lies.

Gary Younge, a long time UK resident of DC and very much a sceptic about Obama, expresses the fear:

At issue is the insidious and racist manner in which his candidacy is now being framed as that of a nefarious, foreign interloper whose allegiance to his country is inherently inauthentic and instinctively suspect.

Some of these charges have long emerged from familiar and predictable places...

<snip>

But soon these attacks shifted from the political margins to the mainstream. During the recent ABC debate, Obama was grilled about his refusal to wear an American flag tiepin. One of the moderators asked Obama of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright: "You do believe he's as patriotic as you are?"

Having given up on the African-American vote, the Clintons have clearly decided that it makes more electoral sense to collude with these attacks than it does to raise the tenor of the discussion and challenge them. During the ABC debate, Hillary applauded the line of questioning. "You know, these are problems, I think these are issues that are legitimate and should be explored."

<snip>

Three days after Obama made his landmark speech on race, Bill Clinton said of a potential match-up between Hillary Clinton and McCain: "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." The implication was that Obama doesn't love his country and all this "racial" stuff is just getting in the way.

<snip>

Unable to beat Obama on delegates and still unlikely to beat him in the popular vote, Hillary Clinton has just one strategy left - to persuade superdelegates that Obama is unelectable. She has tried branding him as inexperienced and slick-tongued, and neither of those have worked. At this stage she has just one argument left: his race.

<snip>

Now I expect most the responses to this diary to be Obama played the race card first. To which the response could be - no he didn't: or indeed Hillary is playing the race card by saying Obama played the race card by saying Bill played the race card first...

Don't go there. That way madness lies.

For obvious reasons, his electability and his mixed race heritage, Obama can't play the race card: he would be playing it against himself.

TWO SUGGESTIONS FOR MENTAL HEALTH

1. Though not a sin of commission, saying 'America isn't ready for a Black president' is a sin of omission: an acquiescence to the racism of others. People who use this phrase are tacitly accepting Americans are predominantly racist - something which I don't believe is true anymore, and should be no more condoned that saying 'America isn't ready for a woman president'.

2. Can we also stop making the equivalence between distrust between communities, and active racism. I've heard so many comments in the last few days here about 'blacks being as racist as whites'.

Of course racist attitudes can exist in all kinds of societies. I happen to know Kenya and (some) members of each of the tribes who don't trust and have are prejudiced against the other. But RACISM is about prejudice combined with power i.e. the ability of one race to subdue, discriminate against, and persecute the other. To equate black racism with white racism in the US is effectively saying there's a moral equivalence between say, the Bosnians and the Serbs, or Tutsis and Hutus, or indeed Slaves and Slaveowners, because both sides disliked each other equally.

Racism isn't just an attitude, it's a power system , and since neither blacks nor women have ever held such power, this leads to the totally ludicrous and immoral position of equating slave with slave holder, the powerless with the powerful, the persecuted with the persecutor.

To accuse all black voters who vote for Barack Obama of being essentially racist is as crazy as accusing every women supporter of Hillary of being sexist.

Don't go there. That way madness lies.

If we're going to have discussions about race, for the sake of cohesion, for the sake of the democratic party and a still unhealed country, can we quit talking about race this way?  The only people who will benefit from these flame wars over sexism and racism are real sexist racist republicans who will be laughing all the way to the White House.

Don't go there. That way madness lies.



Display:


Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go there. That wa (2.00 / 3)

Wonder who will be first with the 'he started it' argument. Booby prize for that.

I hope supporters from both sides can discuss the substantive issues involved without acrimony


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:00:55 AM EST

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go there. That wa (2.00 / 1)

I volunteer, since you clearly want someone to step forward.

There was a time when Hillary never went negative in this campaign.  Remember those times?  All those guys standing up at the earlier debates, with their occasional moments?

MSM folks used to conjecture about why she didn't attack back.

Then came Iowa, then came Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" statement that was distorted into something it was not...

And then came Hillary's "it took a president" statement - also distorted into something it was not.

And voila - suddenly the Clintons were injecting race into the campaign...except they weren't, and you honest Obama supporters know damn well they weren't.

The rest, is history.

Everyone have a good day...time to go to work.


Never let the bullies win.
by SluggoJD on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:24:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go there. That wa (2.00 / 1)

Sorry. You lost. Two other posters went for the 'he started it first' line before you. Third place I'm afraid.


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:26:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good diary (2.00 / 1)

and did you watch Rev. Wright's speech last night?


_____________
changiness
by lizardbox on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:21:07 AM EST

Re: Good diary (2.00 / 1)

He's giving another good speech on CNN right now.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:29:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good diary (none / 0)

No. I'll check Youtube. Sorry to be lazy, but you don't happen to have a link?


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:59:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go there. (none / 0)

the cat is already out of the bag.


by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:24:19 AM EST

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go there. (2.00 / 1)

Ahhh. So you're saying we might as well get in some racism while we can, because it already started?

;)


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:19:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go there. (none / 0)

Yes, reading that comment again, I think the poster is going to win the booby prize


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:22:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go there. (none / 0)

nope, not stating that at all.  This diary is too little, too late.  Race is already injected into this campaign.  You cannot stuff in back into the bag - hence my comment.


by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:06:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Props for the sentiment, but... (2.00 / 2)

I don't really agree that racism is based on power.  There's such a thing as institutionalized racism, which is more of what you're talking about.  I think it's very possible for blacks to be racist and women to be sexist, but I don't think either of those reasons accounts completely for how well the candidates do in those demographics.  There is such a thing as speaking with more authority on issues which a demographic group care about, like civil rights or glass ceilings or the like.

Also, while I dearly love the British mindset, their media often lacks clear understanding of American politics... unsurprisingly.  Present company notwithstanding, of course. <3  Even The Economist sometimes parrots inaccurate information, not that this really makes them different from American corporate media.  

Anyways, kudos for the great title.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:26:38 AM EST

Re: Props for the sentiment, but... (none / 0)

Sorry, I disagree. Institutional racism is something different. That's when the individuals within the institution may not have racist beliefs, but the presumptions of it's organisation and hierarchy tend to lead to racially based outcomes.

Racism without power (and I include economic power in this category) is like my Kenyan example: until the rise to power of the Kikuyus, the balance of distrust between the various other minority tribes led to little actual violence or friction. It's only when elections appear rigged, or distribution of wealth becomes lopsided, that racism is enacted.

I go back to the slave/slaveowner example. The racial hatred on both sides was mutual. But the effective racism was not.

And please, don't make (vaguely) chauvinistic assumptions about my mindset. I'm Armenian welsh by origin, my brother's father was from Barbados, my sister in law is Kikuyu, I've lived, worked and married in America. I don't think I have a typically British mindset


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:51:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Props for the sentiment, but... (none / 0)

Sorry. Missed the 'present company excepted' line. Hmm. Too much blogging maybe the first sign of incipient ADHT.


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:57:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We're cool (2.00 / 1)

I can be a blowhard at times... my hide and troll ratings from TexasDarlin, soros, and their ilk can attest to that.

Chauvanistic, though... I was raised by a feminist!


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We're cool (none / 0)

I was raised by one too! But by chauvinism I didn't mean the male type, I meant the anti British type. But my apologies over reading too fast still stand.

Though I must admit, Brits make very good baddies. There's a whole generation of British actors who have made a fortune being the evil ones in US movies. It's a great choice, because that way all US citizens can unite and forget their differences, and jointly loathe your aristocratic former colonial masters.

But I'm twisting my mustache as I write, polishing my riding boots, and laughing quietly and malevolently: we invented elitism!

:-)


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't you mean (2.00 / 1)

"Chavanism?"

I hear chavs are a big problem in Jolly 'Ol England.

Okay okay, just kidding.

More caffene please.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go (2.00 / 2)

You can probably guess how I feel about all the claims that Hillary is using race to attack Obama, so there's no point in rehashing any of it.

But I agree with your suggestions, except your assertion that saying, "America isn't ready for a Black president," is just a sin of omission. It's one thing for Hillary to make the argument to super delegates that Obama will have trouble with white, working class Reagan Democrats; I think she has the right to make that argument, just as Obama would have the right to make the argument that she will have troubling winning AAs in the GE. But as far as I'm concerned, the people around here who are engaging in what I consider to be an especially despicable form of concern trolling should be harshly criticized for their active role in congratulating and excusing a bigoted mentality. To bow and scrape and cower before racism, rather than rail against it, is tantamount to giving it one's seal of approval. It shouldn't be accepted as a given -- it should be condemned.

And yeah, I'm sick of hearing about how "racist" African Americans are for voting for Obama. People are just looking for a way to write off a demographic which isn't voting the way they'd prefer.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:29:09 AM EST

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go (2.00 / 1)

I agree with every word, and BTW I don't agree with Gary Younge's article in its entirety. Hence my plea: let's step back from this madness.

But as a Hillary supporter, once again Sricki, you remind me that there is still plenty of hope left


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:55:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go (none / 0)

That kind of double standard has been killing us time and again. If we don't adhere to our own standards, it's no wonder the Rep are laughing at us and we lose the white working class every time.

It's one thing to understand the racially based voting patterns of the AA in democratic primaries, but understandable doesn't mean acceptable. You don't realize it but the AA community is just handing out licenses to vote according to race to other communities ( and they are using it). Complaining  about it just make it worse.

Now, go ahead and call me racist all you want, but if I of all people am racist, then we are in real trouble.


by TaiChiMaster on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:01:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go (2.00 / 1)

You may not be a racist, but you sound like an racism apologist, which isn't much better.

It's one thing to understand the racially based voting patterns of the AA in democratic primaries, but understandable doesn't mean acceptable.

So you think it's unacceptable for white women to vote for Hillary in larger numbers than for Obama? Or is it only wrong when AAs vote for Obama in larger numbers than for Hillary? What an odd double standard you're applying.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:07:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go (none / 0)


racism apologist? Well that makes two of us then. Let's bind in felloship brother.

Since it's not practical to brand as unacceptable all racial biases (because everyone seems is doing it aparently) we would be better of dropping the issue.

And I mean really dropping it. I tell you we were looking better when Obama was not black enough.


by TaiChiMaster on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:14:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go (2.00 / 1)

Could you please explain how it's "racist" for African Americans to vote for Obama? I'd be interested to hear your undoubtedly convoluted theory.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:17:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go (none / 0)


It's hopeless, why am I wasting my time?

Ok, one last time:
Obama is not running against William Wallace, 93% is way more than he deserve on the issues only.

This is a little fact that will not go away, and every time you complain about the the voting patterns ot the white working class, this little fact will be thrown right back at our faces. An let's face it we have no good answer for it.


by TaiChiMaster on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:21:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's early, forgive me. (2.00 / 1)

Obama is not running against William Wallace...

What does Braveheart have do to with this?

Regardless, considering that even the weakest Democrats generally get 80+% of the black vote, is 90% so out of line for a civil rights attorney?  


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:41:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's early, forgive me. (none / 0)

Well I wasn't sure of the first name?

You know the answer, but hey, I have 2min to kill so I'll humour you.

AA comunity is voting democrat because of ISSUES: you know, affirmative action, the fact that the republican party is full of unrepentant segregationist, etc...


by TaiChiMaster on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:46:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ah, George Wallace (none / 0)

George Wallace was the 1968 guy.

Like I said, too early for blogging.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

90% is WAY too much against (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton, and you know that.  I'm with TaiChiMaster, you are being deliberately obtuse -- pretending not to get it.   Everyone knows that AAs are gaga over Obama.  And they are more gaga than women are over Hillary.   Is that a bad thing?  Up to personal choice, but don't argue with the basic premise as it is obvious.


by miker2008 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:39:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's the basic premise again? (none / 0)

That black people are racist for voting for Obama?

If that were true, then Alan Keyes would hold public office.  He's a black politician, right?

Maybe, just maybe there's a reason in addition to race that black folks like Obama without resorting to racism or anger with the Clintons.  

I'm not saying that those aren't factors, but the core of it is that he's simply a better civil rights/poverty candidate, which are issues that are important to African Americans.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:07:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The basic premise is that (none / 0)

African-Americans are preferring Obama because he's "like them" which is a perfectly reasonable thing for people to do.  Everyone does that.   The value judgement (is that good or bad?) is a separate question.  

Didn't Keyes run against Obama?    

Why do you say he's a better civil rights/poverty candidate?   He's not for universal health coverage which is a HUGE issue in the African-American community with much higher infant and maternal mortality rates than whites have, with healthcare issues like diabetes and heart attacks being higher in the black community.  Really, I mean, that ALONE should be of pretty big concern to the African-American community.    

Bill Clinton and John Edwards have both spent considerable time and money in New Orleans.  Has Obama ever been there?  Obama spent time organizing on the South Side when he was building a political career.  What has he done for the community lately?   Why didn't he speak up when Rezko kept poor blacks in inadequately heated tenements through the Chicago winter?


by miker2008 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The basic premise is that (none / 0)

Keyes did run against Obama once... he's a perrennial presidential candidate as well.

Obama is for universal health care... when it's plausable.  So is Clinton; Clinton's deal isn't UHC, it's unfunded mandates.  They both realize that UHC isn't going to come overnight; some preparation is needed.  Obama's plan is essentially identical to Clinton's, except that it's more likely to pass congress.

I'd address the rest of your questions, but the very fact that you're falling back on Rezko inclines me to believe that you won't listen to a bit of reason on the subject.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:31:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oops, well I didn't mean to cut (none / 0)

off the conversation.  


by miker2008 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:08:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go (2.00 / 1)

It's hopeless, why am I wasting my time?

I have no idea, but I wish you'd desist, since you're wasting everyone else's time, too.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:48:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go (none / 0)

Until South Carolina I thought a large proportion of African Americans were pro Hillary, just as they had been major supporters of Bill Clinton.

I don't want to get into the 'who started it' argument vis-a-vis that primary, but to say that a large section of the electorate became 'racist' over night because they ceased to start supporting Hillary is, well, how shall I put it, a little inflammatory.

And of course the big nail in the coffin of your argument is that the overwhelming bulk of Obama's support comes from white voters. To quote a section I omitted from the Guardian piece:

The point here is not whether white people are prepared to vote for him. First, they clearly are. Of the 10 whitest states to have voted so far, Obama has won nine. And there are countless reasons why people don't back him that have nothing to do with race - not least that they prefer another candidate on their merits.

Surely there's no denying that unlike Jesse Jackson, Obama has put together a remarkable coalition from a variety of ethnic and economic backgrounds.


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:08:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

African-Americans WERE pro-Clinton (none / 0)

before South Carolina.   The Obama camp launched a dirty trick against the Clintons to drive a wedge between them and their traditional black support.  Jesse Jackson Jr., Donna Brazile, Al Sharpton, and other people who have high esteem among the African-American community started calling the Clintons racist and pushing this 'meme' in the mainstream media.  

Well ... what do you expect to happen when people behave that way?  Not only blacks, but a whole bunch of whites now believe that the Clintons are racists.    And Hillarys' black support base evaporated, with the exception of a core group of older black leaders who know the truth and stuck by her.   Like John Lewis who was bullied into endorsing Obama by Jesse Jackson Jr.  

The whole thing is repugnant.


by miker2008 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:44:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Eh. (2.00 / 1)

I've never seen any solid evidence that there was any "dirty trick."

Bill Clinton himself has been wildly uneven on this issue.  He can't seem to get his facts straight from one moment to the next.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dirty tricks: (none / 0)

Jesse Jackson Jr. says Hillary "didn't cry for Katrina victims"

Donna Brazile says that Bill Clinton calling Obama's foreign-policy claims a fairy tale was "an insult to people of color."  Wha?

Obama campaign feeds "Bradley Effect" to the national media, making racism a topic of discussion in the MSM.

Obama campaign officially complains that Hillary's comparison of LBJ (policy wonk) and MLK (inspirational leader) was an insult to blacks.  Obama calls her statement "ill-advised."  Wha?

Obama campaign officially complains that Bill's reference to Nelson Mandela was racial insult.

Obama campaign and MSM jump all over Geraldine Ferraro for saying what Obama was already on record as saying:  Quoted on his own campaign web site "If I were white I'd just be one of 20 freshman senators."


by miker2008 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go (2.00 / 1)

I won't call you racist, but I will say I have no idea what the hell you just said.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:18:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Very well said n/t (none / 0)


by linc on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't agree (2.00 / 0)

That racism is based upon power either. Some of the worst racists in this country are people with very little power themselves.


by Mayor McCheese on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:34:17 AM EST

That's an important point. (2.00 / 2)

Racism plays out in as many ways as there are racists, I'd argue. But I'd suggest that the racism of the powerless and marginalized - or any other form of bigotry - has something to do with social status and therefore a variant of power.

We see this all the time in the gay community, for example: "Yes, I'm gay, but nobody can tell, so I'm better than that effeminate person over there". In the same way, some people use racism as an identifier of their place on the social totem pole.

Ergo, "I may be poor and unemployed, but at least I'm white". It's a classic symptom of buying into the predominant white-male-oriented values hierarchy.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:40:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't agree (2.00 / 1)

Uh huh. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it seems to me that you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry; but I don't feel you've actually had any experience on this point and are just trying to make a claim for political posturing towards your candidate.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:22:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with your sentiment (none / 0)

in general- but please explain, other than the usual "it wasn't circulated to the media" how exactly the SC Obama campaign memo was/is discredited?



That's a pretty big claim.
by linc on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:09:44 AM EST

Re: I agree with your sentiment (2.00 / 1)

Obama disowned it and said such tactics shouldn't be part of his campaign. I'll get the links if you like. I'm amazed you haven't seen them.  

Not to get into the 'who started it first' argument, the salient points are surely these:

1. How can Obama play the race card being mixed race?

2. How come he's never accused any surrogate or supporter of racism, only railed against diviseness? (And his reaction to Ferraro's comments  actually defended her)

3. How could he possible garner enough votes to get as far as he has if he was only playing to the sensitivities of the African American community?


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:15:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with your sentiment (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton also disowned the supposed racist remarks made by those that are somehow tied or associated with her campaign- even the most vague of relations-


1.  It would be wonderful if Obama was viewed as both white and black in this country- but that is just not the case, even for the most politically correct.


2.  He hasn't needed to accuse anyone of anything, his campaign has very wisely used only surrogates to push the race issue: JJ Jr., for instance.


3.  You underestimate the tendency of overly PC liberal American's to be persuaded by this sort of campaign.  Which crowd is screaming most about Clinton being a racist?  Well, it certainly isn't the African American crowd-  
by linc on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:58:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with your sentiment (none / 0)

Well, you've got some points with 1 and 3 - but I think we've all got be careful to make a distinction on 2) surrogates/supporters/campaign.

Jesse Jackson Jnr's comments were disowned as I remember it. Of course we can all assume that the inflammatory statements made by supporters on either side are covert attacks run by the campaigns, but occam's razor surely applies: how complicated, and how dangerous would that be for the nominees?

The simpler answer is that, faced with two amazing change candidates, one mixed race, one female, the simmering tensions over race and gender in the country would be bound to surface, regardless of what the campaigns did.

The point of this diary is to make it clear that neither side would win by deliberately playing the race card, and it is best to put an end to this game of pass the racist parcel.


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:04:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go there. (none / 0)

Gary Younge's article was baseless and inflamatory. He was looking to stir up the readers, get some numbers, and it is interesting that he has to hide behind a British newspaper. I'm surprised at the number of articles these days that are published with no real sources and a little heresay. There used to be a journalist's code, but it seems like even random thoughts by bloggers are printed and given credence. ;)


by sunnyaz08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:14:07 AM EST

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go there. (none / 0)

You're entitled to your ad hominem, but you don't seem to want to address any of the substantive issues I've raised


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:16:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To both sides on Race: Don't go there. (none / 0)

I didn't want to go there


by sunnyaz08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:49:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Too Late (none / 0)

The damage is already done.

Hillary to bitter Klansman in Indiana who cling to their guns.

Barack is black.

Pastor Wright throws Obama under the bus.

Obama may as well quit now, because there will be riots in Denver because Hillary won't quit.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:20:23 AM EST

Re: Too Late (2.00 / 1)

We'll be sure to let him know a troll on the internet suggested he quit. I'm sure he'll take it into consideration whilst he wins the nomination.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:24:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too Late (none / 0)

I think the above comment may be snark though, or perhaps a sign that anarchism is alive and well.


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:28:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Racism (2.00 / 1)

Here's my take on it as far as politics go.

Overt racists are overwhelmingly Republicans, especially the ones who belong to racist organizations.  Removing their voice from the political process is as simple as beating the Republicans wherever we can.

The other kind of racism I'm going to call 'lingering doubt'.  This is evidenced by people who would use the excuse that a black man can't get elected for not voting for a black man.  We do have lots of this type in the party and it's up to Obama and those of us who support him to win them over.  Obama has been doing a good job of pointing out the important issues we are voting for and why we shouldn't get distracted from our goals.

As for the 'George Jefferson' brand of reverse racism, it's up to those of us who think it's self-destructive to convince those people we need to come together and work together.  None of us can change this country for the better without the help of all the others who support that change.


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:09:44 AM EST

Re: Racism (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for that. As always I learn something from your posts. Makes coming to MYDD worth it - despite the aggravations.


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great diary (2.00 / 1)

I love the title, and you have the right sentiment.  To split the party into two halves is the way of madness.

I would have a more intelligent comment but I am drained from my neuroscience test, it beat me like a dead horse.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:52:19 AM EST

Re: Great diary (none / 0)

So studying neuroscience drains all the dopamine and serotonin from your brain. Some irony there.

One of my favourite sites in the world BTW is Mind Hacks. You might know it already:

http://www.mindhacks.com/

I love to see an article there, or by you, explaining why I feel impelled to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous MYDD, instead of finishing my novel.

Displacement activity I guess. Instead of sharpening my pencils, I go and sharpen the internets.

Thanks for the kind words Student Guy


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know why I do it. (2.00 / 1)

I'm not working on my novel because I'm at work, and the level of creativity I can muster while dealing with facilities issues is... not high.

Luckily, MyDD doesn't require a lot of creativity.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:11:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know why I do it. (none / 0)

Actually my novel IS my work. I make a living as a TV dramatist, playwright and author. But I know... it's such fun that nobody believes I can get paid for it.

That's probably why I come to MYDD though, to give creativity a rest


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:23:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well now I'm jealous (none / 0)

I really gotta get on my book if I'm actually going to make a go of writing...

sigh


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well now I'm jealous (none / 0)

Err... Sorry. My irony rich diet can be unhealthy. I'm making it sound better than it is - a lot of the time.  

I haven't had a day job for about twenty years, and sometimes I do miss it - getting paid whatever, even when posting on MYDD. Full time writing can be soul destroying - imagine turning your favourite hobby into a job! Mechanising the imagination. Pah. Taken me about ten years to get over it.

But great that you've nearly finished your novel.

Fifty pages from the end of my first, and it's really annoying that I can't leave huge blank spaces between lines of dialogue, or leave it all to actors and a director. Novels are hard. Phew. Hence this displacement activity.


by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:06:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm probably about half done (none / 0)

At least with the story... then fleshing out the dialogue, adding characterization, etc...

It'll be awhile.  I burned out and started bringing my PSP on the bus with me for the past few weeks.  My mind runs in cycles of creativity.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:11:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It does (2.00 / 1)

when you get an average of 2 hours a night of sleep in studying for it.

I'll come up with something post-finals week, Micro has my name and number for the next 40 hours and after that Physiology wants to meet me in a dark alley.

(Finals week is not fun).

Your article impressed me as most of what is here is similar to the whole of the US newspaper market (some bright spots but anemic on the whole, while the bright spots are more a kin to the british newspapers (though trolling in the trolls diaries is fun...).


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:44:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.