Race and the 2008 Primary and Why the Phrase "the Race Card" Should be Removed From our Vocabularies

[Raineyb]

I'll try not to let this get to long. First a bit of an introduction followed by a preface then the rant.

This is my first OP. I've been lurking for quite some time before I signed up for an account. No one else wanted to discuss politics and I needed to have these discussions one way or another. I have not been a prolific poster just yet. The boss frowns upon me keeping up with internet boards on company time. :)

However I have been participating in enough primary discussions to notices a theme I find a bit troubling. I guess I didn't realize how much I needed to say certain things about this primary until it came out as a rather long rant to what could probably have been a much shorter snark.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5915794

The above link is the original thread from which this post originated.

For those you who have not read that thread it was a discussion about an Atlantic Monthly article based on an interview in the National Journal with Representative Clyburn where he gives the corollary to Senator Clinton's argument that Senator Obama is lacking in the support of working class white males. Now it was entirely possible that it could have turned into discussion into the passing of a generational baton. It could have been a discussion about the "graybeards" and the power they have even when they don't wield it overtly. The linked article about the interview certainly mentioned graybeards and back rooms and people keeping quiet because of potential reprisals. However, that did not happen.

As what appears to be per usual for these types of discussions it devolved into a Clinton supporter saying that we should not choose the candidate because he's black and that both candidates are nearly tied. The Obama supporters (of which I am one via Edwards) countered that that was not what Rep. Clyburn was saying ect., ect. What follows was my response with a couple of paragraphs added at the beginning to mitigate some of the sting of the original snark.

This year in addition to the first viable female candidate running for the Democratic nomination for president we also have the first black candidate running for the same position. This should be a great time for Democrats especially since the Republicans have so badly run this country that none of them should be able to run for dog catcher. But instead we have two factions becoming increasingly entrenched in support for their candidate, a race that's for all intents over and yet the end is still months away. We have a candidate who is associated with a president who is known for the strength of his support in the black community using tactics designed to appeal to people who do not want to vote for a black man and we have supporters of this candidate making excuses for this. When the discussions inevitability come up we have some of the more rabid supporters of this candidates eventually decide not to continue the conversation because "they are tired of being called racists."

There is only one way to reply to such a statement:

If you're tired of being called a racist; perhaps you should refrain from behaving like one.

Here's a little fact that we don't discuss enough. If Senator Clinton was not a former first lady the SD's would have had a quiet discussion somewhere and urged her to drop out or risk alienating the party. And this conversation would have happened weeks ago. But she stays, uses Rethug tactics and very few people have publicly asked her to step down.

If Senator Clinton was in Senator Obama's position she would have declared victory and started demanding that her opponent to drop out and no one would have said that Senator Obama had the right to stay in the race until the Convention (even though he like she does have that right)the way people have said about Senator Clinton. There would have been a huge outcry for him to step down or risk the party losing in November. We've not had this outcry. People say "Oh the race is over" and it's true as far as it goes but Senator Clinton continues to campaign as though she has a chance in hell. We still have SD's sitting on their asses. Why? Because they don't want to be the one to hand it to a black man? I can't say for sure but it damn sure looks that way. I can't really say I'm surprised because unfortunately, moving goalposts is a fact of life for black people in America.

If Senator McSame had said the same thing about getting the white vote that Senator Clinton said on Wednesday or Thursday (My apologies for not knowing exactly which day. I work second shift so I get up on one day but go to bed on another. They tend to blur together on occasion.) we would have rightly excoriated McSame for his racist rhetoric. But because Senator Clinton says it we have people who claim to be Democrats apologize for it.

The truth is this: Senator Obama is being treated differently because he is black. His pastor says crazy things, he has to "denounce" him. Louis Farrakhan says crazy things, Obama has to denounce him too even though he's never been allied with the man. Because apparently all black people know another and we all have the same views on everything. Why, we must be interchangeable! Meanwhile, Senator McSame allies himself with and actively seeks the endorsement of rabidly insane homophobic, religious bigots. We've yet to have a serious conversation in the media about these people and the Senator from Arizona's alliances. The one time it's brought up McSame brushes it off saying he's glad to have the endorsement but he disagrees with some of what the man believes. Apparently McSame doesn't have to denounce or reject. They can agree to disagree. Yet this isn't good enough for Obama?

What's worse, when these differences are pointed out the old tired, idiotic, asinine, cretinous, dim-witted, meme of "playing the race card" come out.

"The race card" is nothing more than a moronic dismissal of a very real problem. Here's a little something for you folks who love this phrase. Discrimination is not a trump card that black people pull out in order to get out of something. Black people are loathe to even bring up discrimination unless necessary because the usual response for white people who do not want to be called out on their racist bullshit is "Oh you're playing the race card." Discrimination and the disparate treatment that comes with it is not a game. It can literally be a matter of life and death. If you don't believe that ask Sean Bell. Although you will need a Ouija board to do so; dead people rarely come over to chat. This trivialization, is insulting and needs to stop. Otherwise all you are saying is that black people have no rights, dignity, or anything else for that matter that white people need bother to respect.

One last thing, when people say that the Clintons are using racist tactics that is not the same as someone calling them racist. However, the use of such racist tactics are indicative of a nasty combination of desperation and opportunism. Racists can be educated, and may turn into an ally down the road. Anyone who knows better, as Clinton clearly does, and uses such repugnant tactics anyway can not be trusted because the same way she turned on black people she will turn on white people who are true progressives.

Regards

[jody]

1. "Why" is interesting but facts are exit polls show about 15% of voters say race was important.

In Illinois, 23% of the voters said yes to the question "Was Race of Candidate Important to You" and 72% of them were Obama voters.

See http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

[rucky]

5. That should work out in the Dems' favor, then.

eom

[jody]

8. That's one way of looking at the exit polls. n/t

[hokies4ever]

6. About 50% in NC/IN said Rev. Wright was important

Yet Obama still garnered about 200,000+ votes between those two primaries. Does this mean that this 50% of the people are voting for Obama because of Rev. Wright? Of course not, that's absurd. Just as absurd as your logic. Just because 15% said that race was important, that doesn't mean that is the reason why they voted for Obama. Did it occur to you that perhaps there were MANY things which were important to them? Like, I don't know, the economy, the Iraq War, gas tax pandering, etc.

Learn to read and understand exit polls. Just because an issue is 'important' does not mean that they are voting for the candidate for that reason. You interpret it as people voting for Obama BECAUSE OF his race. I interpret it as people voting for Obama NOTWITHSTANDING his race.

[jody]

7. I did not say some voters voted for BO because he was black. I said "In Illinois, 23% of the voters

said yes to the question 'Was Race of Candidate Important to You' and 72% of them were Obama voters."

Do you believe they voted for BO because he was black?

It's unlikely they voted for him because he was white but that is a possibility.

It is you who needs to "Learn to read and understand exit polls."

[hokies4ever]

10. you still don't understand

I'm sending the short bus by to pick you up, so try to follow the bouncing ball.

23% of the voter said race was important in IL and they 72% of them voted for Obama. Obama won Illinois 65-35. Not much of a difference between 72% and 65%, so it doesn't make sense that race was THE most important issue, or even that it factored in much at all.

How many 'important' issues are there for voters? Countless. Just because one issue is important doesn't mean that they're voting because of that issue.

By the way, Obama is a senator FROM ILLINOIS. Yeah, I'm sure that has NOTHING to do with any of the exit poll results from the Illinois primary.

[jody]

11. Let me explain it to you one more time, race does matter to some voters. In Illinois, 5% of the

voters in the primary said "Race of Candidate Was... Most Important" with 39% of them voting for Clinton and 60% voting for Obama.

See page 4 at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#ILDEM

Have a nice day and goodbye. :hi:

[hokies4ever]

12. You just proved how dumb you are

so let me explain. Obama won Illinois 65-35, but out of all of the voters who said that race was most important, he won by a LESSER margin with that group, 60-39. This clearly shows that the people listing race as 'most important' were less likely to vote for Obama than the people who did not list race as 'most important'. In other words, 60 is less than 65.

Does Hillary love math as much as you do? :rofl:

[ms liberty]

2. K&R...

You've made some cogent points. I particularly like this bit:

"...when people say that the Clintons are using racist tactics that is not the same as someone calling them racist. However, the use of such racist tactics are indicative of a nasty combination of desperation and opportunism. Racists can be educated, and may turn into an ally down the road. Anyone who knows better, as Clinton clearly does, and uses such repugnant tactics anyway can not be trusted because the same way she turned on black people she will turn on white people who are true progressives."

Very well said. Welcome to DU!

[hokies4ever]

3. Think of 'race card' like 'rape card'

Say a woman claims to have been raped in 2007. However, it's later proven beyond a doubt that she lied and she eventually admits to making up the story. Now say a different woman claims to have been raped in 2008. Completely different woman, completely different circumstances; the two have never met. What would you think if somebody accused her of playing the 'rape card', or crying rape as it's more often said. After all, we do know that women in the past have used the rape card, so why should we believe this woman? The media starts to investigate and finds evidence that she attended a meeting of her local NOW organization 4 years ago. Even better, two of her best friends say that this woman describes herself as a feminist. Rape card user!

See how hateful and insensitive this sounds? Whenever you hear someone say 'race card', think of this analogy with 'rape card' and you'll see it from perhaps a unique perspective. Claiming that someone is using the race card is a demeaning way of dismissing their complaint outright due to prejudices people hold.

[Raineyb]

14. That's an interesting analogy

If some folks were forced to think in terms of someone they care about it may help them realized how disgusting that phrase is. I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen but it's very interesting nonetheless.

Obama is right about needing to have a real conversation on race. The problem is that I don't think we can have the serious conversation because too many people refuse to open their eyes or even pay attention to our history.

Regards

[msongs]

4. when a candidate's wife brags about her husband's race as an issue for same race voters........ nt

[jody]

9. I can't believe a Dem candidate's spouse would do a thing like that. On the other hand the spouse

might know the partner's character better than naive supporters.

[barack the house]

13. Exactly Bush ran his 2000 campaign negative and he started as he meant to go on...

I cannot for a second understand why folks can't see what is up the road, the campaign through its ups and downs has shown what the next whitehouse will bring nothing positive.