Patterico's Pontifications

5/7/2008

DeFrank: The Ugly Truth about this Election

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 11:37 am



[Guest post by DRJ]

Here we go again. Thomas DeFrank in the NY Daily News uses quotes from white Indiana voters to suggest that whites who won’t vote for Obama are either ignorant or racists:

“With Clinton posing alongside pioneering Indy speedster Sarah Fisher, there were almost no African-Americans to be seen. Many in the white, working-class crowd were simply not ready to back Barack Obama – for reasons that are disturbing.
***
Obama did manage to pull in many white voters, but still encountered similar sentiments from a man who refused to shake his hand at a diner in Greenwood, Ind.

“I can’t stand him,” the man said. “He’s a Muslim. He’s not even pro-American as far as I’m concerned.”

Such feelings leave Clinton and the Democratic Party in a tough spot. With the largest number of remaining delegates nowbeing party insiders, they have to decide if Obama can overcome enough of that antipathy – essentially deciding if enough working-class whites will back away from the black candidate, whether because of the false Muslim rumors, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright flap or old-fashioned racism.”

This might be a more convincing argument if whites were voting 9-to-1 for Hillary the way blacks are voting for Obama. It also sounds like the national media wants to shame whites into voting for Obama, which doesn’t strike me as a good way to win votes.

I found DeFrank’s speculation about Hillary far more interesting. He reports the Clintons believe a Democrat will win the Presidential election no matter how contentious the nomination process. That would certainly explain Hillary’s willingness to stay in the race until the convention, since an Obama win means this will be her only shot at the Presidency. As DeFrank says, there’s no downside for her.

— DRJ

17 Responses to “DeFrank: The Ugly Truth about this Election”

  1. I seem to remember an elderly gentleman refusing to shake Mitt Romney’s hand. I had no idea Romney was black.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  2. What is truly irritating about the “whites won’t vote for Obama” nonsense is that Obama has shown questionable views on whites:

    1) Read his book–he wrote about not trusting someone because he was white and being hung up on dating a white woman.

    2) Take a look at his stance on the Jena Six. He completely ignored the white victim. Can anyone argue that Obama was evenhanded on that issue?

    3) He supports race preference, perhaps not as strongly as others, but he does.

    4) He is clearly comfortable around purveyors of anti-white rhetoric.

    Law (62ca0c)

  3. So are the 90+ percent of black voters in West Virginia racist? Or are we not allowed to ask?

    mojo (8096f2)

  4. Because of the divisive campaign on the left, McCain has largely been given a pass so far by the MSM. As soon as they have a nominee, you’re going to see every major media outlet attacking McCain on the issues conservatives are most upset with him about. The NY Times will have daily articles, not just editorials but articles purporting to be straight news, slamming McCain. Everything McCain does will generate a scandal, manufactured for the sole purpose of undermining his credentials, not to mention resurrected scandals (some true, some now debunked but that will be ignored) receiving new coverage like the Keating 5, personal indiscretions leading to his divorce from his first wife, rumors of affairs with staff, accusations about his time as a POW, etc… nothing will be off-limits.

    The Dem nominee, even if it turns out that Hillary is able to steal it, will be hailed as the new “Only Person Who Can Save America and the World” every day until the election. Hillary has good reason to think them Dems are going to win in November. Depending on who gets the nod, either racism or misogynism becomes the top campaign tool for both the Dems and the MSM. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  5. I believe that color is a red herring, pun intended. I have come to this conclusion, by reason of my life’s experiences in America and that race is not the operative dynamic in American “race relations”. I think that the real issues are concepts of “divided loyalty”, and this has plagued the US since colonial days when the issue of “Loyalist” or “Patriot” was the concern. The Zeitgeist of this election is that all three nominees are perceived to have some significant divided loyalties. The terms RINO, OREO and Pinko are examples of forms of suspicious perceptions. Whether it’s deserved or not.

    Colin Powell could easily run for president this cycle, in either party, and be handily elected by a majority of all American voters with race being only an issue of the proverbial 2% of humans that will oppose anything, anytime. Obama has bigger issues than his color, Hillary has bigger issues than being female (and Clinton) and McCain has bigger issues than being an old white man. The issues are just where does their respective (political) loyalties really lie (pun intended).

    C. Norris (739708)

  6. It’s sort of really irritating. If blacks vote as a bloc then it’s fine, but if whites vote as a bloc it’s racist.

    drjohn (5e0e1e)

  7. I believe that color is smelt, which I only ate once because somebody told me that smelt doesn’t taste fishy. But, like smelt, the whole skin color thing tastes fishy to me.

    Herring? My wife likes herring paste, but I think it’s an elitist thing, like caviar. Anybody who would eat red herring must be a pinko.

    Don (9ca635)

  8. Wow, that was bad. I wish I could delete that.

    Actually, I don’t think the color issue is about divided loyalties at all. They’re two separate things. Nobody thinks that African-Americans are really loyal to Africa, although the slam has been made against “hypenated Americans”. The issue at stake more often is self-conscious identity. In the case of loyalist vs. patriot, just as in the case today of Democrat, Republican, Green, Nascar, literati, or stoner, people perceive themselves to be a part of a group that they define for themselves. Skin color is a quick identifier, but so are black trenchcoats and lip piercings.

    Obama can mount a credible run for office because many Americans identify with something about him apart from his complexion. People know so little about him that they can read into him what they want. But the more defined a candidate is in terms of policy positions or other identifiers, the fewer people will consider him to be part of their group.

    Colin Powell, like Obama, isn’t considered by most people to be a black, a liberal, or a conservative. I think most people would think of him as a successful military figure who speaks well and looks good on TV, part of a successful military operation that ended fast. THAT is why he’d be a strong candidate.

    Don (9ca635)

  9. He reports the Clintons believe a Democrat will win the Presidential election no matter how contentious the nomination process.

    I think they’re right that if Obama would win without the contentious process then he will also win with it. So it comes down to whether he can win, period. If this is shaping up as a really huge Democrat tidal wave in Nov. it will probably carry Obama in with it. If voters are in a little calmer mood then Obama probably can’t win IMO. In any case all this stuff about Operation Chaos is meaningless. The primary battles will be long forgotten come election day.

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  10. It is not irrational for a white person to hesitate to vote for a man who attended and supported a “Hate Whitey” chruch for 20 years.

    Lily (029c82)

  11. To defeat Obama, all that will be necessary is for the 527s to run TV ads showing Wright preaching, Ayers dancing and Obamas home in Chicago. Toss in Michele O’s disappointment (hate) of America inspite of her Ivy league education and there you have it.

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (e18128)

  12. What color is a someone with a “melanin-enhanced” father and a “melanin-deficient” mother? “Melanin-neutral”?

    Damn, I abhor Hyphenated-Americans

    Horatio (a549f7)

  13. To the contrary, I think Thomas DeFrank should keep up his crusade of questioning the racial motivations of every white person who doesn’t vote for Obama. I suspect this tactic will have the same effect the Guardian’s efforts to get their (British) readership to call Ohioans and ask them to vote for Kerry.

    Sean P (e57269)

  14. Stashiu3 is 100% correct. Poor McCain has no idea what’s about to hit him.

    rrpjr (fb0748)

  15. I think Sean P is spot on. I was living in California during the Deukmajian/Bradley gubernatorial race. In the weeks leading up to the election, the Bradley campaign aired ads that ran (to the effect of): “Let’s prove that California has the courage to elect a black governor.”

    I was pretty offended by those ads, and I suspect a lot of other people shared my view.

    Steverino (d6232c)

  16. Bradley Effect:
    Of course, it didn’t help Bradley to have a on the ballot a proposition to ban all handguns.
    The gun-owners voted big-time, and I would doubt that Bradley got 5% of that vote. And, those guys don’t talk to pollsters, either.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  17. They got a whole church built around hating me and I’M the racist?

    Whitey (ca63cb)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2195 secs.