Filed under: 2008 elections — Jason, Managing Editor on May 10, 2008 @ 10:30 pm CEST
With Hillary Clinton predicted to win West Virginia by a huge margin, even Clinton supporters are highlighting West Virginia’s usually white-dominant racial demographics as a major reason. But some Clinton supporters are choosing radical means to suppress commentary on the increasingly open racial appeals coming forth from the Clinton campaign’s desperate rhetorical thrashings by banning all commenters who even talk about it.
If there was an actual response to make to the charge that the Clinton campaign is increasingly embracing open racism, why would it be necessary to ban people instead of just responding to them? There is no evidence that the bannings are responses to spammers, since only 6 such commenters have thus far been banned. Instead, it seems that Clinton’s last die-hard supporters are forced to use whatever tools they have to avert their eyes from the ugly caricature of the Democratic Party’s worst history that their candidate has embraced. While it is not true that every criticism of Obama is “racist”, it IS true that the Clinton campaign has increasingly focused on racial demographics in recent weeks. It is that shift in focus, not the existence of criticism, that shows racism.
P.S. The blatant irony and hypocrisy of bitter-end Clinton supporters telling Obama supporters to “deal with defeat” should not be missed.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments
policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or
willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email.
1 Hillbillies For Hillary - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought
May 11, 2008 @ 1:27 am CEST[…] used to deny the reality that Obama has for all practical purposes won the nomination, Jason at PoliGazette responds to ” the blatant irony and hypocrisy of bitter-end Clinton supporters telling Obama […]
2 Interested
May 11, 2008 @ 6:18 am CESTI don’t get how he could have ranked the legions of her stupid comments - but good for him.
3 Tully
May 11, 2008 @ 6:46 am CESTHey, if anyone has an expert grasp of how to make stupid comments, it’s Rangel.
Can we now cut loose on Obama for claiming he has broader support among black Americans?
4 Interested
May 11, 2008 @ 7:06 am CESTRight, wouldn’t want this blog to be - lopsided in it’s coverage of the Democrat candidates by any stretch of the imagination.
5 Tully
May 11, 2008 @ 5:03 pm CESTPoint being, Interested, that one comment is just as much "embracing open racism" as the other. Unless, of course, one employs a rather blatant double standard. Not that I have any desire to defend the Democratic Party itself from the charge of racism, but what I see here is an attempt to cast accusations at one side of the Democratic field while blatantly ignroing the very same thing being employed on the other side of the Democratic field.
As near as I can tell, the six posters at MyDD who were banned were banned for a specific thing, namely calling the residents of an entire state racists. That’s the ONLY thing "the evidence" supports. SO a few points here, for the less hysterical reader to ponder:
–The actual comments that resulted in the bannings at MyDD are not available for review. Without that, I don’t see any way to substantiate the vague anti-Clinton criticism from Jason about them. They are side issue–and irrelevant in any case. Commenters are banned from blogs for offensive remarks ALL THE TIME. Jason should know–he’s done his share of such bannings right here. Comments, Jason?
–Focusing on the demographics most likely to vote for you is not racism. It’s simply what campaigns do. You turn out your base to win primaries. It’s a matter of the vote-yield-from-resource-focus calculation in employing resources for maximum results. The campaigns are in the TURNOUT phase directly before the primary election. The "hearts and minds" phase is over for West Virginia, and the effort now is to turn out one’s base demographics. If your strongest support is among American-Lithuanian hunchbacked grandmothers and white steel mill workers, you put a lot of effort into getting same to go to the polls. If you have less than 50% support among Asian-Americans, you don’t spend any resources at all chasing them to the polls as a group–because you’d be spending your money to help your opponent. Your resources are finite, you focus bulk vote yield by turning out groups where your support exceeds 50%. At this point in a primary campaign "outreach" spending to pick off wafflers from low yield groups is throwing away money. Indeed, it’s actively counter-productive for you.
–Jason finger-points at "Clinton supporters." That’s a fool’s game. Every candidate in a presidential race will have "supporters" that are less than savory. They are not the candidate. Unless they’re actually involved with the candidate’s campaign or closely associated with the candidate personally or professionally, it’s just plain dishonest to use them as some kind of slur on the candidate. Noting who a candidate’s less savory supporters are is one thing, and legitimate–claiming the candidate is responsible for the words and actions of said supporters is another, and is not legitimate. That applies just as much to the fallacy of blaming Clinton for the words and actions of Jerome Armstrong at MyDD as it does to the fallacy of blaming Obama for the words and actions of his fans in Hamas.
We’ve already reached the point in this cycle where PDS becomes the rule rather the exception. I don’t expect it to get better beween now and the conventions, or after in the general. Instead we’re going to see an escalation of Political Demonology tactics.
6 Interested
May 12, 2008 @ 1:58 am CESTRather blatant double standard was the point. but nice typing.
7 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 4:00 am CESTFind me a quotation where Obama singles out exclusively black support as the main reason that he should be nominated, and you can go to town, Tully. But until you find that quotation, your (and others) giving Hillary (and others) a pass on the same things you bash Obama for will continue to be nothing but an exercise in transparent hypocrisy.
8 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 6:34 am CESTI see you’re trying to narrow the qualifications for race-baiting there, Jason. ONLY a single type of extremely specific and very narrow statement now counts? One must ignore the obvious mathematical fact of American demography that says that exclusively black support can’t elect anyone in a nation-wide contest, because blacks are a mathematical minority? Heh. Pull the other one. The topic is race-baiting by the candidates and their official proxies, right? Or did you wish the topic to be unchallengable assertions about one side? Unchallengable because they’re so narrowly tailored that it’s almost* impossible for them to apply to anything but a single vaguely referenced incident?
I’m not giving Clinton a pass at all–I’m arguing for equal-opportunity notice of mutual race-baiting within the party. You, OTOH, seem to be peddling the "black people can’t be racists and black candidates can’t be race-baiters because they’re black" line. Am I wrong there? If not, why not? Did I miss some vague unspoken nuance somewhere?
You’re openly calling me a "transparent hypocrite" for simply noticing that MAJOR double standard at play, so please be kind enough to also note that I have openly and repeatedly defended Obama over the last several months from many of the flightier and false accusations made about him, such as the "He’s a Muslim" thing. Even though I don’t support him. That I even took a day off and drove an hour each way through a howling freakin’ Great Plains blizzard and stood outside in same for another hour to see him speak to give him a fair shake. A courtesy, I might add, that I did not extend to any other candidate, despite opportunity. Though I am kinda sorry I passed on the Ron Paul event, if only for the comic relief factor.
(*–ALMOST: My personal fave quote was when Obama didn’t show the traction he wanted–thought he deserved?–among black voters earlier in the cycle, and Michelle Obama came out and said on MSNBC that the black polling really would turn around, that "Black America will wake up and get it." Or is that too narrowly tailored to meet your minisculely-gated criteria?)
9 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 3:10 pm CESTYou are the one that attributed a made-up position to Obama, alleging it to be the same as the explicit references to “white” voters made by Clinton specifically as the justification for her receiving the nomination in spite of Obama’s majority support, Tully. If you can’t back up your attributions, don’t make them in the first place. As she has become more desperate, Clinton has explicitly made race-based appeals a core part of her campaign. No matter how many lesser comments you can find from Obamans, they can’t compare legitimately to that kind of explicit race-baiting.
And since you put this in quotation marks when I never said it or anything like it, you apparently are escalating in your false ascriptions of positions to others. I think that is grossly dishonest on your part. In point of fact, I think there are lots of black race-baiters, including Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan.
10 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 4:58 pm CESTYou are the one that attributed a made-up position to Obama
I did? Right here in this thread? Name it and quote it, please! If you refer to the claim from the Obama campaign about having broader support in the black community than Clinton does, that’s just reality as well. Since I live in a racially mixed community and work in politics I hear that one every freakin’ day, directly from Obama campaign officials. And it’s quite true–he does have massively broader support than Clinton in the black community. I can dig up pictures I took at the local caucus to show that said support is downright overwhelming, or at least was then.
alleging it to be the same as the explicit references to “white” voters made by Clinton specifically as the justification for her receiving the nomination in spite of Obama’s majority support
Nice of you to not actually cite those explicit justificatory references for closer examination, isn’t it, Jason? Would that be the incident where Clinton simply (and accurately) repeated what an AP story said? Is quoting a national news story now racism? Please do actually quote these desperate racist appeals from official spokesepeople in the Clinton campaign–just as I most specifically cited Obama’s wife acknowledging their campaign’s reliance on waking up "black America." PER YOUR SPECIFIC CHALLENGE.
And while you’re at it, could you please explain how a blog not part of the Clinton campaign banning some posters for being obnoxious has anything at all to do with the Clinton campaign? I see you blew right past that little point as well. Maybe you could actually quote what said posters said to get banned? Or does it simply not support the vague and amorphous accusations you make? Maybe you don’t even know, because they were delisted, so you just made claims about them?
If there was an actual response to make to the charge that the Clinton campaign is increasingly embracing open racism
Citations, please, actually showing the Clinton campaign "increasingly embracing open racism," or at least supporting said claim. Actually FROM the Clinton campaign, mind you. Not ramblings from Joe Blogger in FeverSwampVille, or Billy Biscuitbiter in West Bumscratch.
it IS true that the Clinton campaign has increasingly focused on racial demographics in recent weeks. It is that shift in focus, not the existence of criticism, that shows racism.
There’s the teeniest bit of meat. But as a professional who does political demographics for a good part of my living, once again, that’s a complete fever-swamp BULLSHIT accusation. Focusing on turning out the the demographics that are most likely to vote for you is simply what campaigns do. It is not at all "racist," it is realist.
If you can actually show the Clinton campaign saying negative things about blacks in order to move white voters, that would be racist. If you can show the Obama campaign saying negative things about whites in order to move black voters, that would be racist. (Oh wait, we’ve already seen that, he just skipped saying "white" when doing so….)
But showing that a campaign concentrates its turnout efforts in the period right before the vote on the demographics where it has the greatest leading percentages is a freakin’ yawner. Be those groups white, brown, green, young, old, male, female, transgendered, or canine-American. You don’t turn out your opponent’s base for them. That’s their job. You turn out yours. If you poll at 90% among left-handed Irishmen, you will by golly try to get every single left-handed Irishman to the polls. If you poll at only 10% among Hispanic grandmothers, you will not waste an ounce of effort getting Hispanic grandmothers to vote.
Not rocket science–and NOT racism, unless you use blatantly racist appeals to do that turning out. So please, where is this blindingly clear evidence of racist campaigning on Clinton’s part that you claim? Be specific. I don’t doubt that it could occur (I’ve said absolutely forever that Clintons play dirty and should NEVER be underestimated, that there is nothing beneath them) but given your ongoing reluctance to be specific with something more solid than "targeted demographics" or pointing at bloggers in FeverSwampVille or Billy Biscuitbiter in West Bumscratch, my skepticism barrier is getting higher by the second. It grows a bit more every time you use invective and name-calling and evasive distractionary inflammatory rhetoric instead of citing actual evidence that would speak for itself.
The burden of proof for claims is on the claimant. You’ve made the accusation that "the Clinton campaign is increasingly embracing open racism." What are you using for evidence of that? Be specific.
11 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 6:49 pm CESTYou said:
You later when on to falsely attribute a quotation to me that I did not in fact write and that conflicts radically with my true position.
I didn’t read most of the rest of your last lengthy comment since there is little point responding to someone who refuses to be accountable for his own prior comments while, at the same time, outright fabricating statements that he attributes to others and holds them accountable for. Your critique of others’ posts is undermined by your hypocrisy as to standards and methods of evaluation. For example:
A burden you impose on others but don’t seem to trouble yourself with, such as when you falsely and without any basis whatsoever accused me of promoting a “blacks can’t be racist” meme.
12 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 7:33 pm CESTI didn’t read most of the rest of your last lengthy comment since there is little point responding to someone who refuses to be accountable for his own prior comments
That would be the "run away and make more noise and toss more insults rather than address any of the actual substance" approach, right? Oh, I get it! You’re researching the rhetorical style of the Paulistas, but from the Obama angle!
Yes, the Obama campaign does indeed claim broad support among black Americans. I know–I work with many in the Obama campaign in other matters. And in fact, that is a true statement on their part–they do indeed have broad support among black Americans. And the Clinton campaign can likewise claim broad support among white American Democrats, because they do, in fact, have broad support among white American Democrats.
It’s not remotely racist of either campaign to say so, or to try to turn out their respective bases.
13 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 7:36 pm CESTwithout any basis whatsoever accused me of promoting a “blacks can’t be racist” meme
O yeah, others can judge that "basis" by reading upstream, but I didn’t accuse you of that. I said you seemed to be promoting that line, and asked you to explicate–something you declined to do in favor of being obnoxious and evasive instead.
14 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 7:42 pm CESTPots and kettles, Tully. Given the tone around here in recent months, I don’t think anyone on the anti-Obama crusade gets to complain about being "obnoxious". If you all don’t like seeing it flying back at you, try not starting it over and over and over. I’m tired of having my side be the only one that is required to operate under any expectation of politeness or accuracy while the historically low ethical, moral, and intellectual standards of the Clintonistas are transformed into an all-purpose excuse for everything they or their allies might do or say.
And try also giving up your attempt to play games by changing the subject (that’s the real similarity to the Paulistas on this thread) and focus on correcting your skewed standards of evaluation. The fact of the matter is that the Clinton campaign has been using explicit references to racial groups as the primary core of its case on why they should win the nomination. To whatever degree race-baiting can be found in the Obama campaign, it appears to be far less pervasive or central to their case. I won’t object if people want to criticize specific examples of it, but let’s STOP pretending that Obama’s campaign is the primary purveyor of racial animus in this campaign season.
15 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 7:51 pm CESTThe fact of the matter is that the Clinton campaign has been using explicit references to racial groups as the primary core of its case on why they should win the nomination
Something you keep claiming and HAVE YET to offer ANY real evidence of, preferring instead to bluster and insult rather than actually demonstrating your claim. Pretty feeble, dude.
16 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 8:07 pm CESTLying about the facts and trying to change the subject to attack me isn’t going to work, Tully:
And directly from the candidate herself:
Now, can you find equally direct racial references as the core of an argument from the Obama campaign? The ball is now in your court. Let’s see if you can stop WHINING (no one from the anti-Obama side gets to complain about that characterization since they are the ones who initiated it and used it for WEEKS without complaint) long enough to actually engage the question.
P.S. Right now, I am just focusing on the explicit racial references of the Clinton campaign. The equally explicit anti-intellectualism, where having education and knowledge about things is somehow a BAD thing for people to have, is also indefensible.
17 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 8:35 pm CESTI didn’t lie about them, Jason, I ASKED YOU TO ACTUALLY PRODUCE SOME. Rather than your previous content-free second-hand rant about some bloggers and biscuitbiters that made unsourced claims about the Clinton campaign not remotely supported by the citations offered.
First quote: Note that Begala is NOT a Clinton campaign spokesperson and does not work for the campaign. Anyone can say anything. GMAFB. His words rebound on Clinton no more than Brazile’s do. Interesting story on that first link, though. Love the framing. "Part of that is the question of whether white liberals and other so-called progressives in the Democratic Party have progressed enough to allow African-Americans, and other people of color, to advance from supporting cast to center stage." Implication being that if Obama doesn’t advance or win, it MUST be racism within the party. I’d call that a stretch.
Second quote: Out of context, and I already noted that Clinton was citing an AP polling story. Should she lie about what the polling said? Is noticing what it actually said racist? Heh. Impolitic, yes, but racist? As Clinton also said "These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat, in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that." Well, effing DUH! One out-of-context quote referencing a factual poll, already referenced, is the entire basis for your claim that the Clinton campaign is "increasingly embracing open racism"?
“Our problem has less to do with white working-class voters*. In fact the problem is that — to the extent that there is a problem — is that older voters are very loyal to Senator Clinton.” –Barack Obama
LMAO. Why, that age-baiting bastard! But they do have their party line straight. Obama’s consultant David Axelrod is quite consisitent in changing race questions into a referendum on "older voters" who want to stick with what is "more familiar."
[*–Despite such voters clinging to guns and religion, of course!]
18 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 8:42 pm CESTThat you can concoct spin that leads towards a more, um, "charitable" interpretation of the Clinton campaign’s repeated talking points (which are, by the way, spoon-fed to "independent" commentators like Begala) about their electability among "white" voters does not make my less charitable interpretation invalid. So if your only argument is to say that an interpretation other than calling it racism is possible, then, well, F-ING DUH.
But if you want to prove the claim that my interpretation is WRONG, you’re going to need to do better than just brushing off the repeated, consistent references to "white" voters in explicitly racial terms and trying to change the subject (as in your first comment on this thread that provoked this entire exchange) by "playing gotcha" with inaccurately-quoted and/or lesser references from Obama.
19 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 8:44 pm CESTThe equally explicit anti-intellectualism, where having education and knowledge about things is somehow a BAD thing for people to have, is also indefensible.
Just because she factually notes she’s getting the
slack-jawedless-educated white rural vote, she’s celebrating idiocy?Now, can you find equally direct racial references as the core of an argument from the Obama campaign?
Already did, before you produced yours, even if you chose to ignore it. Michelle Obama’s explaining that their low polling numbers among blacks would pick up, that "Black America will wake up and get it." As Black America certainly seems to have done, to judge from the primary and polling results since then. Nor does "direct" hold much weight with such obvious rural-redneck references as the "clinging to guns and religion" line. About as direct a slur on stereotype as one ever gets.
20 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 9:00 pm CESTI don’t think that some one-off Michelle Obama said months ago excuses what the Clinton campaign is repeatedly saying now. But regardless, if you want to criticize Michelle Obama’s outbursts, have at it. I won’t object. I’m glad she is not running for president since she has many of the same weaknesses as a certain other former First Lady.
And I think the furor over the "clinging" line is an example only of how anything can be converted into a controversy if you try hard enough. It was a one-off gaffe in phrasing, not a repeated talking point like the Clinton campaign’s references to her support levels segmented by race.
And yes, I do think that the Clinton campaign has embraced the anti-intellectualism of the anti-academia movement that usually only features certain elements of the far right. I think that is obvious not only from her repeated highlighting of the importance of the uneducated vote and the criticism of what Begala bluntly called "eggheads", but also in her blunt rejection of economic experts in the discussion of the "gas tax holiday". It is a 16-year pattern with her — whenever some group doesn’t support her, her response is to demonize the group that opposes her and to say that the only groups that should matter at all are the ones supporting her. Whatever criticisms might be made of Obama (and I’ve long conceded that there are a lot of them), I don’t think you can put his failures even in the same category as Clinton when it comes to segmentation, divisiveness and demonization.
21 Tully
May 12, 2008 @ 9:04 pm CESTYes, yes, anyone on the tube who doesn’t agree with you is drinking the campaign KoolAde and is a tool of the Machine. Those that don’t disagree with you are speaking the True Gospel, independently and without any hidden agendas. Got it. In one. Years back. In many many venues.
You’re demanding negative proofs. You know better, so please don’t claim you’re even attempting honest discourse.
Shown so far:
Clinton claimed she had greater support among white voters. That’s a statement of fact. Obama claims he has greater support among black voters. That’s also a statement of fact.
Jason says only the first of those claims, the one made by the white candidate, is racist, and that it somehow constitutes "increasingly embracing open racism." That’s likewise a fact.
I disagee with Jason’s simplistic and assertive assessment of such thin evidence for substantive and copiously stated reasons. I don’t think the accurate description of poll results (by EITHER campaign) is racist. I don’t think that concentrating on turning out one’s own base (by EITHER campaign) is per se racist.
Jason argues that I’m wrong because (according to him) I’m a vicious lying Clinton-kissing Obama-bashing hypocritical weasel, despite a long history on my part of bashing Hillary and defending Obama.
None of which on his part, of course, bears even remotely on the prime question of what constitutes "increasingly embracing open racism," and whether or not that single quotation qualifies.
I think that sums it up quite well. I leave you to your ongoing angst explosion, Jason.
22 Jason
May 12, 2008 @ 9:07 pm CESTOnce again, you respond by attributing to me things I never said. Talk about proving my point. And I’m supposed to talk nicely to you when you repeatedly make such comments? Since you’ve already been called out on making ascriptions about others’ beliefs without a basis in what they actually said, I conclude that you are now doing it intentionally. Your last line indicates a clear intention to provoke.
"Obnoxious" it will be as long as you keep up with this crap. Either that, or you’ll just get yourself banned, like we did other commenters who persistently lied about what others said.
I’m not “demanding” anything. I posted a post then YOU started posting demands. If you can’t stand getting in return what you dish out, maybe you should reconsider your initial approach.
23 dare
May 16, 2008 @ 1:33 am CEST[…] […]