Race, age, income, blah blah blah…gonna drink me some moonshine til the primaries go away!

Thursday, April 24th, 2008 @ 4:08 pm | Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap, Politics, Racism

What’s really going on here? Andrew Sullivan says that we’re seeing a subtle weighing of the scales, where the old-timey dynamics come into play: White women trump black men in the pecking order.

I don’t believe that racism explains all of it at all. To my mind, the kind of tactics deployed against someone like Obama were deployed against Kerry and Gore and Clinton. Class and gender and age also weighed in the balance. And the fear of another Carter has motivated some. But the insane hysteria over Wright, the racist incidents in Pennsylvania that are only now being aired fully, the “Hussein” and “Muslim” memes, the sense of white entitlement that is so embedded in the Clintons that they don’t even fully see it: you have to be blind not to see the impact of race. Imagine if John Edwards had achieved what Obama has achieved. Imagine if he had won more delegates, votes and states than Clinton. Would Clinton have ever offered him the veep slot? Of course, race has affected this campaign, if only because the white entitlement that infuses the Clintons is invisible to most.

A reader of his pipes in:

The greatest dogwhistle of the Obama campaign so far is his ability to lay out this urgency to our generation. Viewed in this light, the only thing Obama has to tell me about yesterday’s election is that Pennsylanvia has the second oldest population in the country. After hearing that fact, I get it. He was never going to win.

A lot of statistical games are going on, but the striking differences between the voters over 40 versus the under-40 crowd encompasses a lot of subdivisions. Hillary isn’t just a woman, she’s a boomer, so she gets not only the older more racist voters, but the narcissistic boomers who can’t yet imagine they aren’t the center of the universe. In most states that hasn’t saved her, but it’s frequently created a demographic lump that won’t budge for Obama, and Pennsylvania was just one of them (Iowa, proudly, was not. When will the rest of the nation learn to listen to Iowans who aren’t named Steve King?) Had it been a Super Tuesday state, it would have gotten lost in the mix. Hillary’s had much bigger wins, and Obama’s had many more bigger wins. It’s a strange symptom of our news cycle that every new race is SO IMPORTANT because Hillary’s camp says it is. Is North Carolina important? Unlikely. And with Obama highly favored to win Indiana, Indiana isn’t so important either. Unless Hillary wins it, then it’s tha most important state EVAH!

I guess one could derive all sorts of lessons from Pennsylvania, it’s such a muddled mix…a 9.2 point lead, straddling the line between underwhelming win and double-digit victory…an interminable and stupid length of time until the next primary, when this one will be forgotten except that it gave Hillary license to keep torturing us with her slow loss, hoping somebody’ll just give her the nomination to shut her up…Obama’s need to step up his game fighting gossipy tabloidish junk that has nothing to do with the presidency…

…I mean, honestly. What is crap like Jeremiah Wright and whoever Obama shook hands with? Some image deal? And we’re listening to this after 8 years displaying to the world a President who’d be the loudmouthed guy at the end of the bar sloshed on Budweiser working at the chicken feed plant if it weren’t for his rich daddy? Apparently having a retard as President is okay, but we can’t tolerate one who doesn’t wear his flag pin because he thinks patriotism is something that deserves more than being worn on one’s sleeve!

America has from now until November to grow the hell up, consolidate support behind Obama and give him a nice 5-10 point lead over John McCain. While Republican hacktaculars like Sharon, Dana Pico, and Brian Pickrell are quaking in their boots (and let us not forget the Republican arm-wringing that went on before Bill Clinton won in 1992), in 2012 Barack Obama can run for re-election and we can simply say, “See? He didn’t enslave the white race!

In the meantime, I’m considering taking up a new hobby, preferably something that involves gin or vodka every night.


26 Responses to “Race, age, income, blah blah blah…gonna drink me some moonshine til the primaries go away!”

  1. Thomas Tallis Says:

    jeromy why don’t you wear a flag pin

  2. Independent Says:

    I feel like such a traitor, but this makes perfect sense.


    Obama should drop out. It makes me nauseous to say it.

  3. Sharon Says:

    I’m not quaking in my boots, Jeromy. I’ve told you for a while now that Obama can’t win. And don’t forget; I thought Obama was the better (more electable) of your candidates.

  4. Independent Says:

    See that? You guys watching? Sharon almost backed herself into complimenting a candidate that wasn’t a Republican. She fixed herself pretty quickly though.

  5. Dana Says:

    Well, Mr brown, I’ve been telling y’all for months now that, while I would find Mr Obama the less objectionable of your candidates were he to actually win in November, that he would also be the easier one to beat.

    Bob Herbert, the New York Times liberal, black columnist, said today that “You can almost feel the air seeping out of the Obama phenomenon.” The editors of The Philadelphia Inquirer, who endorsed Mr Obama prior to the February 5th Super Tuesday primaries, said today in their main editorial just what I’ve been saying for months.

    Unlike Sharon, while I think that Mr Obama is the better of your two candidates, it was never because I thought he was the more electable; it was because I thought he was the less obnoxious.

  6. Dana Says:

    Oh, boy! I just read teh article Independent linked for us on Slate, and it’s a laugh-riot. It assumes that John McCain will win in November — that part I liked — and taht by dropping out, despite his lead, Mr Obama will be virtually acclaimed the nominee in 2012, to take on President McCain. That part I find shaky; why would the Democrats give the nomination to someone who surrendered when he was ahead? 🙂

    Barack Hussein Obama will win the nomination this year, because the super-delegates cannot afford to deny it to him. If they are seen by black voters and the newly-registered young voters as having shoved him to the back of the bus, those voters will be staying home in substantial numbers in November, meaning that John McCain wins. More, a depressed black turnout means that Democrats “down ticket” will also lose in greater numbers, and the super-delegates are, for the most part, elected officials themselves; teh last thing that they are going to do is jeopardize their own re-elections!

  7. Dana Says:

    Jeromy, we thought that you already had a hobby that involved gin or vodka every night. 🙂

  8. mike g Says:

    No…I’m the drunk. Jeromy’s the philanderer.

  9. Independent Says:

    Surrender seems to be a multi-purpose word in the GOP dictionary. As in, like, 42 uses.

  10. Sharon Says:

    It’s funny. Dana considers Obama to be the less objectionable candidate, while I think he’s far more radical and dangerous than Hillary Clinton.

    But the problem isn’t merely the candidates themselves. Republicans didn’t have any good candidates, either. The problem is the selection process of the Democratic Party, which demands that every constituency has an absolutely equal share of the nominating process. That is, it more closely resembles pure democracy. In theory, this is a good thing. In practice, you wind up with the sort of fractured party the Democrats are now facing.

    Republicans more closely followed the representative republic model that our government system is built upon. By using winner-take-all primaries, it ensures that there is a decisive victor in every battle. By splitting up their delegates proportionally, Democrats have ensured a floor fight until their party convention.

    And there’s really no reason for Hillary Clinton to bow out. If you count Michigan and Florida, she has the popular vote. But even without those delegates, those shrieking for her to back down are essentially telling half their constituents that their votes or opinions don’t count. In a party built on identity politics, it’s no wonder those supporters feel angry and unwilling to back the other candidate.

    This isn’t to say I believe those silly polls about Clinton people voting for McCain or Obama people staying home. A small percentage of Clinton supporters might go to McCain as a centrist candidate, but I doubt many will cross party lines. It’s more likely that if Obama isn’t given the nomination that black voters will be so thoroughly disgusted by the Democrat party that they would stay home. And toss Democrats and Republicans in the same categories.

    I’m not arguing that I feel sorry for Democrats for ending up in this position. This is just a result–a consequence, if you will–of their party politics and philosophies. Unanticipated, of course.

  11. Dana Says:

    Sharon wrote:

    It’s funny. Dana considers Obama to be the less objectionable candidate, while I think he’s far more radical and dangerous than Hillary Clinton.

    But Sharon, we wicked conservatives are supposed to All Think Alike! 🙂

    I don’t know if you could consider one more radical than the other, because we really don’t know what they think. Mr Obama’s positions have been carefully crafted, to try to seem at least somewhat within traditional Democratic Party thinking, but some of his outside associations lead people to question his words. Mrs Clinton has spent her time following her faithful husband’s triangulation strategy, to make her look like a moderate, but she lies about virtually everything.

    The only real difference I see is that Mr Obama might not be thoroughly dishonest, but we know that Mrs Clinton is.

    And there’s really no reason for Hillary Clinton to bow out.

    Well, maybe there is — or will be, in nine days. If Mr Obama wins North Carolina, that’ll be all of the excuse the super-delegates need to go ahead and give him the nomination. If Mrs Clinton bows out, and Mr Obama loses in November, she’ll be able to say, in 2012, “See, if you had nominated me, we’d have won in 2008, like I told you we would.” If Mr Obama bows out, and John McCain wins, I don’t think that he’ll be able to make quite the same argument, because he’d have quit when he had the lead.

    Yeah, it’s all speculation, but it’s still fun! 🙂

  12. Sharon Says:

    I don’t buy the logic of that Slate article that, somehow, Obama will have the gravitas to win the Democrat nomination in 2012. Four years is a long time from now and that’s plenty of time for a new candidate without the baggage of either Clinton or Obama to emerge.

  13. mike Says:

    That’s just a judgment based upon a historical observation. And it’s tongue-in-cheek article so you can take it with a grain of salt. But if Obama does run in 2012 we’re almost guaranteed a vomit inducing, Cinderella story press narrative.

  14. jeromy Says:

    Mike’s trying to boost me up there, I haven’t philandered in some time now. Hey, I was always ready for monogamy if it was the right woman…hell, I was even faithful for two years to the wrong woman.

    And Dana, I think you’ve got me confused with Sharon, who’s too neck-deep in rum to study for the bar. Anymore I’m into caffeine.

    Anyway, I find all this talk of Obama being a sure-loss to McCain to be pretty hilarious. Despite all the silly talk as people like Sharon join forces with the Clintonites and the press to pretend America gives a shit about who Obama shakes hands with, Obama still beats McCain in most match-up polls, and does it better than Hillary Clinton.

    I mean, there’s just no THERE there. Surely Dana and Sharon would love Obama supporters getting psyched out and peeing their pants. They want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, and they desperately want people to take the bait, but it doesn’t come true unless they do.

    If people yawn and decide they still like Obama and think he can do a better job of running the country, and Hillary eventually drops out, the wingers got nothing. I mean, they have so little now it’s pathetic…Colin Powell says Jeremiah Wright’s a good man, and shaking hands with David Ayers is not “spending one’s adult life with terrorists,” as Sharon tries to hype it.

    Unfortunately, Dana and Sharon are incapable of giving up before November, so we’ll have to listen to more.

    Oh, and that Slate article is a clear indication that somebody had a copy deadline to meet. *yawn*

  15. Dana Says:

    Why would we give up before November? Heck, why would we give up even after November?

  16. Dana Says:

    Mr Brown wrote:

    Obama still beats McCain in most match-up polls

    Like Doug Wilder was going to beat Marshall Coleman by 20 points, or Harvey Gantt was going to beat Jesse Helms by ten — or Barack Obama was going to beat Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire by three?

    You may have a really unpleasant hangover on November 5th. 🙂

    No, I won’t say that it’s an absolutely done deal, ’cause anything can happen in politics, but I’m pretty optomistic right now.

  17. Nate W Says:

    The reason you’re overly optimistic is because the spotlight is almost entirely focused on Obama/Clinton. It’s why all of McCain’s senile gaffes get scant attention and even less scrutiny.

  18. Thomas Tallis Says:

    haha I’ll be voting for Obama in the fall but a damn lot of good it’ll do me if overconfident Democratic voters deploy terms like “senile,” which will turn off a shit-ton of over-55 voters

    young Democratic voters need to remember that the point of supporting the more progressive candidate isn’t to make yourself feel like a winner

  19. Nate W Says:

    I don’t think that he’s senile but I do find him to be particularly disingenuous. Whether that’s a result of him being one hundred and eight years old is debatable.

  20. Dana Says:

    Well, y’all will be happy to know that, after a couple of months of being registered as a Democrat, just so I could vote against Hillary Clinton, I have reregistered again, as a Republican.

    Whew! I feel so much better! 🙂

  21. Dana Says:

    By the way, perhaps I’ve just missed the threads in which she’s visited, but where is your favorite commenter Jesurgislac?

  22. Sharon Says:

    Despite all the silly talk as people like Sharon join forces with the Clintonites and the press to pretend America gives a shit about who Obama shakes hands with, Obama still beats McCain in most match-up polls, and does it better than Hillary Clinton.

    I mean, there’s just no THERE there.

    You should probably tell that to Rev. Wright, who spent the day making an ass of himself and dragging Obama down with him. I don’t mind you deluding yourself. It’s gonna make great copy Nov. 5.

  23. Thomas Tallis Says:

    follow that dream, Sharon

  24. jeromy Says:

    Yeah, Sharon, some day the Wright factor will kick in and everybody will realize Obama hates white Americans and will use the presidency to enslave them in revenge for 250 years of slavery.

  25. Dana Says:

    Well, surely even y’all realize that Senator Obama wishes that the Rev Dr Wright would just STFU. 🙂

    There was a poll that I caught on WPVI-TV this morning, just as I was walking out the door, which had Hillary Clinton leading John McCain by 50% to 41%, while Barach Obama led Mr McCain only 46% to 44%, within the margin for error. I think it was an ABC poll, but I’m not sure about that one.

  26. jeromy Says:

    I dunno. Wright isn’t behind a pulpit, he’s out there on his own, and he’s showing people just how different a man he is from Obama. You have to ask yourself, what the hell did Obama get from him? Jesus and an appreciation for black folks even when they talk crazy shit that makes white people scaredy and nervous, apparently, and not much more.

    As for polls, it’s interesting to see one where Hillary actually has a better chance than Obama, but they’re rare. And, of course, Dana, both are still soundly beating McCain, who’s not really having a very good time even though he has the Republican stage to himself.

    Ideally, the two Democratic candidates would just gang up on McCain and kneecap him for the next couple months and make it even easier for the final candidate to cruise home in November, but we’ll see if Hillary can bring herself to do it. She’s been dropping some hints recently that she might try the high road for a bit, if only as a calculated decision that it will help her numbers, but for the greater good nonetheless.

    But, you know, herding cats…