Redstate

self-destruct, the cost could be tremendously high. I hope their voters are bright enough to see this for what it is.

... really just solidifying the "evil" of the Clintons, allowing them to retain their wide-eyed hope in Obama via contrast.

That's a rather roundabout way of saying "Obama's not geting the white vote," don't you think?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I guess the proof will come in November to see if those Dems vote Obama or cross over and become McCain Democrats. It's certainly a fertile area for McCain to campaign for votes.

If you take out voters over 65 years of age, Obama wins about 50% of the white vote.

I think you're including young voters under the age of 29 in that white cohort. Young voters are part of Obama's coalition, no question about that.

That's been the pattern Hillary refers to: Obama gets the youth and the blacks and the college liberals. Hillary (or McCain) gets the rest.

Unlike Mondale, McGovern and Kerry, Obama cannot even count on sweeping the Hispanic vote. Look at his rallies. Not many Hispanics there.

Tom Tancredo and Michelle Malkin may be unhappy, but if McCain can cut into Obama's Hispanic support to win the election, let him do it!

Karl Rove was right, and Michelle Malkin was wrong: If the GOP could have appealed to Hispanic voters in large numbers, we could have had a landslide this November against Obama's blacks and college kids.

that it could be part of a larger set of tactics -- not a strategy -- for implementing scorched earth in an attempt to snag the nomination. Others think Hillary is trying to damage Barry so he loses and she takes 2012.

I differ from the other bloggers discussing this, perhaps, because I couldn't care less why she's doing it or what her schemes might be. I've considered her a joke since the "two-for-the-price-of-one" remark in '92.

Bill Clinton will endorse McCain. I think there is no love lost between WJC and BHO. Besides, Hillary can't directly endorse, but I can see Bill doing it. Heck, he almost already has on the stump.

He loves being loved too much to do that. It's as simple as that. He adores his legacy with Democrats. He's damaged that, but endorsing Senator McCain would be deranged on his part, and end Senator Clinton's future politically.

for this Dem-fest, and I've felt the same way, but it's, to use the parlance, beginning to weird me out.

Watch at about 0:43. It's from the introduction the foreshadowed the real knife fight:

lesterblog.blogspot.com

the wise person stays
quietly out of the way
stirring the kool-aid

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Good post, scotchtex!

Just a typical, small town, white girl...

Even your own comments point to a self-contadiction. If there really is no substantial difference between their policies, then what should Blacks (or Whites, for that matter) make their decision on?

In such a case, where there are no policy differences between them, then any other differences between Obama and Hillary (e.g. gender, race, class, youth, rhetorical ability and eloquence, etc.) become decisive. And in that case, with no policy difference bewteen them, then saying that 90% of Blacks are racist for voting for Obama makes no more sense than saying 60% of Whites are racist for voting for Hillary.

Moreover, Obama himself is not a racist. I know you have not (here, at least) argued that he was but I want to set the record straight. Indeed, despite his overwhelming Black support, Obama has made very few racially-based appeals.

What Obama is is a Marxist, with all the Marxist "understandings" and positions on race. He no more believed Wright's racist rhetoric than the White liberals and Marxists of The Nation. He did not believe it but he did excuse it; just like the White liberals and Marxists who read and write in The Nation.

But you ask, how could he sit in that church for 20-odd years and not say anything?

Quite simply, like every good Marxist, he did not take it seriously. Indeed, like every good Marxist, Obama does not take religion in general seriously. At best, he views "religion" as a tool to be used against the masses.

Not only does that explain his comments about "bitter" people "clinging" to their guns and religion. And note, if I am not mistaken, he did not single out "Whites" in his infamous comments. Indeed, this also explains why, when they first met, Obama argued with Wright it wasn't "race" that defined the "enemy," it was "class."

*Just for the record, I reject both the class-based and the race-based polemics.

Jeremiah Wright is a racist, just like many of his congregants are, too. But in fairness, Barack Obama is not. Barack Obama is a Marxist.

I think the 90-10% pro-Obama black vote does come, primarily, from racial solidarity. Is that racism? Is that being pro-black, but not anti-white? I don't know, but we all know that voting pro-white is considered racist. And I think that is a good thing.

I have a Finnish-American friend who's older relatives are pretty old country. They live in Michigan and Wisconsin. They are all Dems. And they openly express racial solidarity with Hillary. And, to me, they all come across as racist. They say they aren't anti-black, but they just prefer "their own kind".

Most white Americans under a certain age were raised to believe that being "pro-white" is just as racist as being "anti-black". I know I was, and I'm thankful my parents raised me that way.

I don't believe that's true of the majority of black America. Being publicly "pro-black" is encouraged. And even being kinda anti-white is acceptable.

A 60-40 white split for Hillary indicates most whites aren't casting a racial vote. A 90-10 black split for Obama indicates most blacks are.

Clearly, it's not just about race. If Obama was opposed to Affirmative Action, and Hillary was for it .. then no way would blacks vote 90-10 for Obama. But with few if any policy differences, racial solidarity dominated the black vote.

As to whether Obama is a racist. I judge a man by his actions more than his words. A sitting Senator attending a racist church is a profoundly racist act -- even if he never said a single racist word.

There are white nationalists in America. No Senator or Representative should ever meet with such people, let alone join their groups. They should never shake their hand. They should never praise white nationalist organizations.

If Obama becomes President then we will have a President who spent 20 years as a prominent member of a racist, black nationalist church. This will undermine arguments against white nationalist movements.

How are we going to convince angry young white men that white nationalism is wrong, when President Obama was an unrepentant black nationalist?

This is why I think an Obama Presidency will be so detrimental to race relations. His life undermines the moral arguments we've used against white nationalist movements.

According to all the survey data I've seen, whites are the least racist ethnic group in America. This is a great achievement of the past 50 years. But this progress is threatened if we, as a country, don't hold minority groups to the same moral standard.

I agree that being pro-White is considered anti-Black and racist. However, being "pro-White ethnic" is not.

Even today, or at least when I lived in the Midwest and Northeast, there are White "ethnic" candidates how run "pro-ethnic" campaigns. They would be the "Jewish candidate" or the "Irish candidate" or the "Polish candidate" or whatever. And no one calls it racist. And yes, the "Jewish candidate" would get 90% of the Jewish vote and the "Polish candidate" would get 90% of the Polish vote in elections where their positions were not significantly different from their opponents'. For that matter, these days we can also add the "Korean candidate" and the "Indian candidate" and the "Hispanic candidate" and whatever to the mix.

For the record, I do not think of it as racist. Do you?

Moreover, there are still plenty of ethnic churches where the congregants are all of a particular ethnic background and they want to stay that way. Growing up in Chicago, even as a Black Protestant I knew that there were Polish Catholic churches where an Irish Catholic dared not go. And they were both White Catholics. Even though I think Jeremiah Wright is a racist, I must ask the question of how this is much different from him?

The difference is that we (perhaps correctly) condemn "pro-race" positions and rhetoric even as we still, to this day (perhaps correctly) still celebrate "pro-ethnic" or "ethnic pride" positions and rhetoric.

The issue is that African-Americans were striped of their ethnicity by slavery in America. Seriously; the vast majority of African-Americans in this country have no idea what their ethnic heritage is, Bantu, Mandingo, Xhosa or whatever. That is a result of slavery in America. Therefore, for good or bad, our "race" must substitute for our "ethnicity".

So when it happens, and it still does happen, that when a "Chinese candidiate" who holds the same political philosophy of the majority of Chinese-Americans in his community gets 90% of the Chinese vote, do you think the Chinese are being racist?

And when the exact same thing happens with a Polish-American or an Irish-American, do you think the Polish or the Irish are being racist?

We all say we are not "hypenated Americans" until we can no longer trace our ethnic (or racial) heritage. But very rarely before then.

Well, perhaps this gets at different experience of America. It's a big country. I've never really experienced the big city white ethnic phenomenon that you describe, although I believe you. I was a military brat and suburban kid. My extended family is based primarily in the Midwest, but I grew up all over.

Moving across the country every 3-4 years clearly makes it difficult to have strong ethnic ties to any one area. So perhaps my life experience is very atypical of the average white American. But even as an adult most of my friends are like me, even though they weren't military brats.

And some of my friends are from Philly and Chicago. But they moved away to go to college, and were the smart kids in school and perhaps just never fit in with their own local ethnic groups. I don't know. What percentage of white Americans have a strong "ethnic" identity?

I know that among my social group (well-educated, tech-savvy guys), it's unusual for a white person to express a strong ethnic identity. And if they do it comes across a bit silly -- like they are desperate to find some ethnic identity, perhaps hoping that they too can claim to be oppressed.

I think the reason it seems silly is because my friends and I all can recall white guys in college who tried to embrace their ancestry. They got sick of being generic white guy, and started wearing kilts, or drinking Guinness all the time. Or they found out they were 1/16th Indian or something.

Even among my non-white friends, even ones who are children of immigrants, strong ethnic identification is rare. I have a lot of Asian friends - Thai, Chinese, Taiwanese, and Vietnamese mainly. Some of them weren't even born in America, but have very weak ethnic identities.

Of course, my minority friends are a self-selected group who chose, at a young age, to assimilate to the broader culture. A Lebanese friend of mine will talk about his cousins -- who spend all their time in their Lebanese enclave. My Vietnamese friend has an aunt who has never bothered to learn English. Her life revolves around a few square blocks. For my non-white and immigrant friends, the stories they tell warn against the trap which an over-reliance on ethnic identity can become.

I agree the black experience in America is unique in America. But many, many whites have long since lost track of their ethnicity or ancestry. I know I describe myself as a euromutt. I think I'm more Irish than anything else, but I really have no idea. And growing up none of my older relatives had any idea either.

...

To sum up: I would want to distinguish between racial solidarity and racism. But I think there is always a risk of racial solidarity sliding into racism and even violence. There are few multi-ethnic societies that escape that trap. We need to be vigilant.

Also, I need to see more voting data. If I met somebody who voted for the Polish candidate just cause they were Polish .. I'd think that was weird. If they were my friend I'd mock them for it. If they were an old person I'd think, ah well, old people are like that sometimes. It's like something out of the 1920s to me.

But perhaps something about my background - suburban, college-educated white military brat - makes me blind to widespread ethnic loyalties among white people.

My experiences definitely differ from yours. It has been my experience that almost every White American who can trace their ancestry back to a specific culture -- note the caveat -- especially Eastern Europeans, has expressed a strong ethnic identity. The same with my Asian-American friends.

Indeed, it is more so with my Asian-American friends. If anything, they are especially protective of their own ethnic identity; especially against the ethnic identities of other Asian-Americans. (I say only half-jokingly, if you ever want to start a fight, call a Korean-American Japanese.)

And again, just so there is no misunderstanding between us, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps I should define the difference between ethnicity and race. Your ethnicity is based on your ancestral country of origin, your "mother tongue" or your cultural history if you will. For example, being of Polish or Italian ancestry. Your race is, well, for our purposes, how you look. There is no such thing as a "Polish race" but there most definitely is a Polish culture. By the same token, there is no such thing as a European (or African) culture but there is such a thing as European/Caucasian (or African) race; although genetically we all literally have more in common than any two random chimpanzees on a hillside.

At the risk of causing another controversy or even flame war, let me put it like this. If you are walking down the street, most people could probably tell if you were White or Black but, unless you told them or somehow identified yourself (e.g. spoke with a particular accent, etc.), they could not tell whether your ancestors came from England or France, Korea or China, or Bantustan or Xhosa.

What is unique about African-Americans is that our ethnic identity, our culture if you will, was essentially raped from us by slavery. Italian, Irish, Korean, whathaveyou immigrants to the United States were able to keep their "native" languages and customs as they first settled here. That gave/gives them a distinct identity even as they (and their culture) becomes part of the basic American mosaic.

Unfortunately, as slaves, my African ancestors were actively discouraged (a euphemistic understatement) from keeping their native languages and cultures. And notice that I do use the plural forms -- languages and cultures; at "best" slavery amalgamated the many varied and diverse African languages and cultures into a hodgepodge that itself different not only from the various European cultures but also from the African cultures it obstincably sprang from.

In other words, there is no such thing as an African culture. As a sidenote, that is why I laugh at the so-called Black nationalists who argue that we (i.e. African-Americans) must get back to our "original African culture": there is not nor has there ever been such a thing. Just like there is not nor has there ever been a "European culture." But perhaps I digress.

But the unique thing about African-Americans, since we do not have a "culture" -- again, it was raped from us by the conditions of chattel slavery -- we substiture race. That is probably inevitable and in many ways a good things; but it is also in many ways a bad thing. For while culture always changes (see: "euromutt"), race doesn't.

Getting back to the original subject of our conversation, it is interesting and informative to note that when he original began to run for President, Barack Obama did not have the majority of the African-American support. Hillary Clinton did. Indeed, one of the ironies of this election cycle is that it was the Clinton's efforts to make Obama the "Black candidate" that started precipitated Obama's popularity; remember Bill Clinton's comments in South Carolina before the Primary (let alone his infamous comment afterwards).

The reason why is that most African-Americans did not see Barack Obama as "Black enough." It was only when the Clintons began to cast Obama as the "Black candidate" cultural -- apparently thinking that if they could reduce the Democratic Primary to "Black vs. White" she would win more votes and the nomination because there are more White voters than Black voters -- that Obama began to win the overwhelming majority of the Black vote.

Perhaps this alone refutes your thesis that Blacks are racist because they vote overwhelmingly for the Black candidate. Barack Obama has always been racially "Black" but was not always been winning the "Black vote." It was only when he was culturally defined as the "Black candidate" -- again, I want to emphasis that it was by his opponent, the Clintons -- that he began to win such overwhelming majorities of African-American votes.

And again, how is this different from "Jewish candidates" winning the overwhelming majority of "Jewish" votes or "Polish candidates" winning the overwhelming majority of "Polish votes"?

If you look at it from a cultural perspective -- which it is -- and not from a racial perspective, African-Americans are not doing anything different than any other ethnic group in America.

******
Unrepentant Black nationalist, Unapologetic Black conservative!

qualifier. It is limited at the outset to that small percentage of whites that bother to so trace.

I can tell you Zoot, not many in the South trace, and even among those that do, I don't think a very high percentage act out much. See the Highlands festivities in NC. not very many there.

Exceptions: greeks

restaurants are great!

But the scots-irish like me, and we did trace, ah, well, we are southerners, americans. Not much green going on. This ain't Dublin west, not NYC or Boston.

Heck, Webb had to write the book for us

Born Fighting.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

They (you) are most likely to select "American" as their ethnicity in the US Census. I think in Northern cities, we have more recent immigrants that came in waves from southern or eastern Europe and from Latin America and Asia. It's easier to maintain a connection to the "mother" culture because it is so fresh in their memories. However, that will soon go away - for good or bad - as people intermarry. My family is already a polyglot and my kids will certainly continue the trend.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

In fact, I was about to add the following paragraph to my post above but I thought it might get us far (even further) off track:

As I said in my previous post, we become (or remain) "hypenated Americans" in direct proportion to our knowledge of our ethnic or cultural ancestry. Thus, as White Americans of the same racial ancestry but different ethnic ancestry intermingle and intermarry, they cease to be "hyphenated Americans."

But again, I agree with your statement.

I also (mostly) agree with your comments about Southern Whites. In my experience they are less likely to consider themselves to be "hyphenated Americans." However, they are (or have become) their own cultural or ethnic subset, Southerners. And yes, I do think the ethnic group of "Southerners" are far more likely to vote for "one of their own" if there are no political differences between the "one of their own" and the non-Southern opposition candidate.

*****
Unrepentant Black nationalist, unapologetic Black conservative!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I mean there are so many ways to create an element that is not in the set of Hard Working white Americans.

Non White comes to mind but "Non White <> Black" There are more than two colors in the Rainbow.

Then "Not Hard Working"= Lazy ?

Always informative to see how people react to these Rorshchach tests.