Post-Racial No More

[DKW 86 7,481]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/3220

Post-Racial No More

Jennifer Rubin - 04.06.2008 - 11:16 AM

Gail Collins writes an entire column bemoaning that the Democratic primary race is “now all about white men.” Obama tries to bond with these voters over bowling, but his “37” brings howls of derision and fretting from liberal columnists. But why should they be surprised? For many presidential elections Democrats have bombed with white males. According to exit polling, John Kerry got only 38% of white males in 2004. In the four elections before that, the Democratic presidential candidate got between 36 and 38% of the white male vote.

Does this mean Obama and the Democrats need not be concerned? After all, if Democrats consistently have lost white male voters, but still won elections, they could do so again. Perhaps what the liberal media and establishment Democrats are hesitant to say is that Obama’s appeal to all white voters, not just men, seems to be evaporating. Indeed, some are downright unhinged. Matthew Yglesias went so far as to bizarrely postulate that John McCain’s Bio Tour was a racist appeal to whites. He wrote that:

it’s the best way I can think of to try to take advantage of older people’s potential discomfort with the idea of a woman or a black man in the White House that doesn’t involve exploiting racism or sexism in a discreditable way.

Only a liberal blogger could argue with impunity that patriotism appeals just to whites.

But Democrats concerned about electability should be worried if Obama turns out not to be the “post- racial candidate” his supporters have lauded him as. Even before his association with Reverend Wright was reported, Obama’s appeal to whites and Hispanics was collapsing.

Hillary Clinton gained impressive wins in Ohio and Texas in large part because the multi-racial coalition which Obama seemed to have constructed began to crumble. In Ohio Obama lost 27-70% among white Democrats, while carrying Black voters 88-12%. In Texas he lost among white Democrats 37-62% and by an even larger margin (30-69%) among Hispanic Democrats.

It’s easy for liberal pundits to attack the “angry white male” voters whom Democrats continually fail to attract. But the fact remains that if Obama is not post-racial in his appeal, he can’t win the presidency. It is not just support from white men, but whites of both genders and Hispanics as well that Obama will need. If he can’t win key swing states like Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Florida (which require him to appeal to whites and Hispanics in large numbers) then the presidency will be out of his reach.

That, much more than bowling scores, should keep Obama supporters up at night.

From Commentary...

10

Bettym47 Says:

April 6th, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Here are my thoughts on why Obama is unelectable:

Today I watched a big discussion on CNN that Democrats will come together in the end even if Obama is the candidate. I disagree. The Gallup Polls are showing that 28% of Hillary’s supporters will vote for McCain if she is not the nominee. Why is this? Well as I see it, there are several reasons, all of which make Obama completely unacceptable even as the Veep choice:

1) First and foremost is Obama’s association with Rev. Wright. I was taught that racism is wrong, period. There is no excuse for it. Yet Obama has found multiple reasons to justify Rev. Wright’s racism and anti-semitism. I chose my place of worship so I could teach values to my sons. If I disagreed with its values, I would not be there. The fact that this racist pastor was Obama’s mentor for 20 years and the person who married him means that Obama really does not have too much trouble mixing with him. Even though there are other issues that are important in this election, how we treat each other is more important than any other issue. I can’t accept Obama’s explanation at all. Wright is not right. It means to me that if the electorate in the Democratic party does not select Hillary as their nominee, then I have no choice but to vote for McCain.

That was written supposedly by a white female Democrat voter.

2) Obama’s level of experience is less than any president’s in modern memory. At a time of great peril in the world, it makes Barack unacceptable. We need an experienced candidate. I would prefer Hillary, but again, if Obama is selected then I would vote for the experienced Republican, in this case, John McCain.

3) I can’t figure out why Obama is running when he’s so young. What’s wrong with staying in the Senate to get more experience? Does Obama really believe that it’s time for him to run when we have so many other experienced Governors and Senators as well who would be wonderful choices? Barack says it’s because of the fierce urgency of now, but his positions are similar to Hillary’s so other than the fact that Barack is in love with himself, I don’t see why he’s running. Such a strong sense of ambition and glorification of his own ego is unattractive in any candidate even though all candidates have strong egos. Let’s also remember that, but for Obama’s ego that compelled him to run, we were united as a party six months ago under Hillary. Obama screamed race during this campaign, it seemed to me, at every comment made which has divided us between young and old, rich and poor, black and white, male and female, and black and brown. He has torn us apart and smoothly blamed it on Hillary. This is not the mark of a uniter.

4) His actions do not match his words. He says he’s the candidate of a new type of politics yet he’s been throwing the kitchen sink at Hillary as well. He’s sent out discredited flyers. He’s made speeches with many words that are not his, blocked the ability of voters in Michigan and Florida to let their voices be heard, and claimed he can reach across party lines to get things done, but has not done that on big issues since he entered the US Senate. He’s been caught in several lies himself such as saying his aide didn’t speak to the Canadians and then we find out they did. He said Rezko didn’t raise a lot of money for him, and then said he did. He said his parents met at Selma, when he was born before Selma, and that his father was airlifted to the US with the help of the Kennedy family which is also not true. Obama claimed he didn’t hear any controversial remarks by Rev. Wright, and then admitted he did, which proves to me Obama is as dirty as the next politician and will also say and do anything to get elected.

If you cant see this as a blueprint fo the Republican attack on Obama in Sept and Oct you are lost. They will drive his negatives so high that he could end up losing almost as bad as Dukakis or Mondale.

5) Obama has too many connections with radicals. It’s not just Rev. Wright; but, it’s also James Meeks who is a delegate for Obama in Chicago who is another pastor with racist views. Meeks used the term “Hollywood Jews” and “House N-word”. Then we’ve got Barack’s friendship with Bill Ayers, the leader of the Weather Underground. This was a violent group who planted bombs in government buildings. Ayers said they didn’t go far enough. Their mission was to destroy the US. Obama met with Ayers not as a youth, but as an adult as well, so he can’t say he did crazy things in his youth. So how will Obama fight terrorism when he has friends who are terrorists? How will Obama stack up in a general election against the war hero, John McCain? Not good, and I haven’t even gotten to Michelle Obama yet.

6) Obama likes to say that Hillary’s negatives will prevent her from winning the election. However, Mrs. Obama has said enough regarding being proud of her country for the first time, that her negatives are just as strong. I can’t vote for the Obama’s when Michelle would be the first lady. She’s been aggressive and nasty at several points in the campaign.

7) There’s been a slow drip drip about Obama and his background. I don’t think we’ve heard everything yet which worries me. Videos posted on YouTube.com by a man named Larry Sinclair about Obama’s alleged secret drug use and other things will be all over the TV if they can be confirmed. And if they can be, Democrats are headed for disaster. Just what we need, another politician standing at a podium with his wife telling America he’s sinned. There’s a reason Obama wants Hillary to get out of the race, but I think he’s the one who should drop out because he’s become unelectable. If he doesn’t lose the Democratic nomination, he will lose the general election and not by a little bit, despite what the polls say at the moment. And because Rev. Wright is so offensive, it gives superdelegates a moral reason why they should switch their support to Hillary.

I say all this realizing that Hillary is not perfect either. I wish she was strong enough to ditch Bill a long time ago, and I wish she had picked better people to run her campaign, and I wish she had a better recollection of some events at times. Yet we are all human, and when I look at Hillary I see a gutsy, experienced, and smart individual who has worked all her life to help people and change the country. I like her. She fights for people like me, and she doesn’t give up. So even though I have been a life long Democrat, and have never voted for a Republican in my entire life, all of this means that it’s not a matter of playing nice and patching up the party. It’s Hillary or bust for me.

How we got here is because the media refused to expose Obama’s background early in this election cycle, because small states seem to have a larger voice in the nomination process than larger states in the Democratic party and because Obama’s lawyers seem to have blocked, for now, revotes in Florida and Michigan. And ironically because we were the party that marched with Dr. King, we are in this position today because many are willing to excuse the inexcusable racism of Rev. Wright if a candidate from our party has a chance to win. No wonder people are furious. So despite the fact that Americans are fed up with Bush, McCain seems like a good alternative if Hillary is not picked as the nominee for the Democratic party.

I figured that out without Hillary telling me, and I say this because Nancy Pelsoi will say that Hillary compared herself to McCain so we’re now all voting for McCain. Wrong, Nancy. I’ve always thought McCain was a hero and the one Republican I could bring myself to vote for. It’s just too bad he’s picked a year to run when Hillary is running. And since I’m in the demographic of women who most consistently vote in America, you can bet that when I vote in November, it won’t be for Obama. Superdelegates had better pay attention, because I’m sure there are other women like me who feel the same way.

See more at http://www.elections2008online.com

The author’s step-father helped to organize the March on Was

You take this and possible ties to the Black Panthers and you have the makings of a huge negative campaign that could derail his candidacy.

[RunInRed 16,528]

This is all based off of polling and opinion (no agenda egh?) as there has not been a primary since the Wright incident. Up to this point, Obama has been carrying states by wide margins where the vote is predominately white (Iowa, North Dakato, Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Nebraska, Utah, etc.)

But if you insist on looking at polls and opinion from the right, it's worth nothing that realclearpolitics is showing Obama quickly narrowing Hillary's Pennsylvania lead from over double digits just two weeks ago to down to 6 points today.

So, we'll see.

[DKW 86 7,481]

This is all based off of polling and opinion (no agenda egh?) as there has not been a primary since the Wright incident. Up to this point, Obama has been carrying states by wide margins where the vote is predominately white (Iowa, North Dakato, Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Nebraska, Utah, etc.)

But if you insist on looking at polls and opinion from the right, it's worth nothing that realclearpolitics is showing Obama quickly narrowing Hillary's Pennsylvania lead from over double digits just two weeks ago to down to 6 points today.

So, we'll see.

Oh, RIR, I see BO winning the nomination unless HRC rerally does go "suicide-bomber" on him in Denver. I saw him even in PA and up 23 in NC so far this am. What I was trying to talk about in this article is that McSame, I really like that, will have his third party surrogates bashing the guy ad nauseum and scaring the white vote away from him.

The good news? No more Clintons or Bushs in the White House!

[RunInRed 16,528]

This is all based off of polling and opinion (no agenda egh?) as there has not been a primary since the Wright incident. Up to this point, Obama has been carrying states by wide margins where the vote is predominately white (Iowa, North Dakato, Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Nebraska, Utah, etc.)

But if you insist on looking at polls and opinion from the right, it's worth nothing that realclearpolitics is showing Obama quickly narrowing Hillary's Pennsylvania lead from over double digits just two weeks ago to down to 6 points today.

So, we'll see.

Oh, RIR, I see BO winning the nomination unless HRC rerally does go "suicide-bomber" on him in Denver. I saw him even in PA and up 23 in NC so far this am. What I was trying to talk about in this article is that McSame, I really like that, will have his third party surrogates bashing the guy ad nauseum and scaring the white vote away from him.

The good news? No more Clintons or Bushs in the White House!

Well so far, McSame has been insistent on running a clean campaign. So we'll see if he can keep the party haters subdued. I think this general election is really going to be fascinating. I'm looking forward to it.