Obama and the ever growing ick factor

I hope all those people who said we have to vote for Obama because McCain will decimate Roe vs. Wade will appreciation Obama's abortion rhetoric now that he has come out in favor of a much stricter, narrowed definition of the "health of the mother" standard:

Obama recently gave an interview in which he seemed to back off his broad support of abortion rights, saying, "I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy." In "clarifying" his remarks, he said this:

My only point is this — historically I have been a strong believer in a women’s right to choose . . . I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions . . . It can be defined through physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don’t think that’s how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don’t think that’s how the courts have interpreted it and I think that’s important to emphasize and understand.

I think it's probably true that there are women in the world who have abortions for what others might think are "bad" reasons -- perhaps even because they're "feeling blue." But the whole point of being pro-choice is not that you think all abortions are a great idea, it's that you don't think government should restrict access to them based on the reasons why a woman wants one.

The way Obama dismisses and minimizes women's mental health as irrelevant is highly offensive to those of us who don't view women as creatures put on this planet by God to be the workhorses of the world*.

According to ABC:

The language Obama used in that response seemed to remove "mental distress" as an allowable exception justifying a post-22 week abortion.

To some observers, that would seem to go against the Supreme Court decision Doe v. Bolton -- handed down the same day as the more famous (or infamous) Roe v Wade decision legalizing abortion, though the Court said the decisions were to be "read together."

Doe holds that the health exception permitting abortion after viability should be based on a "medical judgment...exercised in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the wellbeing of the patient," as ABC News' Supreme Court reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg noted over the weekend.

So was Obama suggesting to Relevant that he disagrees with Doe?

But of course we need translators to understand what Obama is really saying:

On Saturday, after a reporter noted to Obama that he had said that mental distress shouldn't be a reason for late-term abortion, Obama clarified, "historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family...I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions. In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case."

Notice the way Obama throws the words "pastor and family" in, as if he is hinting that in the future a woman will have to get a note from a (presumably Christian) pastor and another from her - husband? baby's father? - before she gets an abortion.

Can this guy seriously be getting the evangelical vote? Are evangelicals really stupid enough to fall for some guy whose "Christianity" comes from Rev. Wright's church?
___________________________________________
*Some of us view women as human beings and entitled to a little more than Milly from Seven Brides For Seven Brothers (for those who don't know their show tunes, Milly was chosen to marry cuz she is "young and strong and has lots of work left in her" - and, yes, she does fight back - even in the highly censored 1950s women didn't like being treated like beasts of burden).

The 4th of July

Got this from here but it's making the rounds. I am going to take the liberty of reposting it in full, since I understand its makers want it seen first and foremost:

Declaration of Objections

July 4, 2008 by annabellep

When, in the course of U. S. Presidential Elections, it becomes necessary for one portion of a political party to assume among the people of the nation a position different from that which they have previously occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of their Constitution entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

In agreement with generations who have gone before us, we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed at birth with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

Prudence will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for transient causes; and accordingly experience has shown that citizens are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the political structures to which they are accustomed. But political parties are not governments, and when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under authoritarianism, it is their duty to throw off such a political party, and to provide different representation for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of many in the Democratic Party, and it is this suffering which compels them to now demand the representation to which they are entitled. The recent history of both parties is a history of repeated injuries on the part of elected officials against the electors, having in direct object the establishment of authoritarian power over them, for the purpose of profit. This has rendered the Democratic Party unrecognizable to ordinary citizens. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Objections

The members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and By-Laws Committee violated The DNC charter on May 31, 2008 by meeting in private, in direct violation of the Sunshine Rules Provision of said Charter.

On that same day, the Democratic Party grossly violated ethical standards when it awarded four delegates to candidate Barack Obama based on actual votes for candidate Hillary Clinton, and in addition, awarded him delegates based on votes for “Uncommitted.”

Earlier in the campaign season, the Democratic Party violated its own Delegate Selection Rules by applying penalties to only two states who broke Section 11 calendar rules, even though five states broke those rules. In addition, Florida and Michigan were originally stripped of 100% of their delegates, even though the rules stipulated a 50% penalty.

The decisions of the RBC meeting mentioned above are evidence of sexism and authoritarianism within the ranks of the Democratic Party.

Caucuses are a violation of the one-person, one-vote and secret ballot principles that have been cornerstone Democratic values for more than a century. They produced a skewed and unfair result this primary season. Caucus states are also over-represented in the pledged delegate count, in violation of the one-person, one-vote principle.

Sexism was allowed to flourish as never before not only because of the behavior of the mainstream media, but also by the actions of many in the progressive online community, the stark silence of the Democratic Leadership and because ordinary Americans, male and female, engaged in it as long as it advanced their favored candidate.

Barack Obama and his campaign exploited racial issues in the primary campaign, which risks setting back the Civil Rights movement, and cynical Democratic leaders, as well as some ordinary Democrats, approved of this campaign tactic.

The voices of 18 million voters who supported Hillary Clinton have been illegitimately silenced, ridiculed, and subjected to outright fabrications on the part of the mainstream press and the Internet press.

The evidence is present, for anyone who wants to see it, that authoritarian tendencies fueled by greed are on the rise in the Democratic Party.

Now, in view of the dismissal of one-half the Democratic voters of this primary season, their social degradation, in view of the unjust actions above mentioned, and in view of the disenfranchisement of the voters in two states, and because we do feel ourselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of a free and fair primary election, we insist that the Democratic Party address our objections, or risk the loss of our votes come November.

In entering upon the work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we will use every instrument within our power to affect our objectives. We will employ agents, circulate tracts and flyers, blog, advertise in all media, petitionenlist the press in our behalf. state and national Democratic leadership, and endeavor to

Resolutions

Resolved, that the Democratic Party must seat the full Michigan and Florida delegation in adherence to the thoroughly Democratic principle of one-person, one-vote.

Resolved, that Michigan delegates must be awarded according to the actual votes cast, specifically that Hillary Clinton must be given 73 delegates and Barack Obama must be given 0 (zero).

Resolved, that Hillary Clinton’s name must be offered on the first roll call at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August of 2008, in accordance with tradition for 16 of the last 18 Democratic National Conventions.

Resolved, that caucuses should be abolished, and the Democratic Primary system in its entirety must be reformed to better reflect the one-person, one-vote principle, as well as the equal representation principle enshrined in the Constitution.

Resolved, that millions of women and men alike no longer think of the Democratic Party as the party for women’s issues, or for equality and fairness, or for the protection of abortion rights, and will no longer vote for them based on such criteria.

Resolved, that the cynical exploitation of cultural issues will not be rewarded with votes, and that it is part of the PUMA mission to educate the electorate about such abuses.

Resolved, that the PUMA movement is comprised of traditional and loyal Democrats who have carefully watched and recorded the events of the 2008 Primary campaign season.

Resolved, that 18 million Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, more than any other presidential primary candidate in history, and they have a right to help shape the agenda and processes of the Democratic Party.

I like that last paragraph so much that I am going to use it with a back-date for my "quote for the day" for July 4 (which I left blank b/c I was with my family).

the price of real legitimacy is an open convention

What happens in Denver is an excellent metric to measure them all by though. No one who voted for Hillary should consider voting for Obama unless the votes are counted properly in Denver. Period. I can even handle SD’s selecting Obama over Hillary for whatever lame reasons they have, but only if everyone sees the real votes out in the light of day.
- commenter, The Confluence

The Denver Group
Set up to "keep the Democratic party Democratic".

To deny Senator Clinton a rightful place on the ballot in an attempt to foster a false image of party unity based on unofficial declarations by super delegates made June 5th will fool no one and only create more disunity. It is in everyone's best interest, especially the Democratic Party and its chances in November, to hold an open and honest convention.
- the Denver Group

How they describe themselves:

The Denver Group has been formed to insure that the Democratic National Committee respect and carry out the democratic process at the convention in Denver this August by meeting certain specific goals. We will be advocating, and if necessary pressuring, through purchased mass media as well other accepted avenues, the Democratic National Committee to see to it that these goals and the interests of tens of millions of Democratic voters are met.

Our goals are:

An open convention.

Senator Clinton's name on the ballot

Speeches allowed by supporters of Senator Clinton on
behalf of her candidacy.

A roll call vote.

No coronation

If we can't or won't obey our own rules, what does that make us?

If this election is rigged, true lovers of democracy should resist corruption.

If Obama is really all that his supporters say he is, he should win hands down. But if he doesn't, maybe he needs to stop the Bush-like pretending that he has "political capital" to burn when he really does not.

We already had one Bush. We don't want another.

Through the use of mass media the Group intends to make it clear to Howard Dean and the DNC that the convention must be an open convention and must function that way, and to that end Senator Clinton's name must be on the ballot. Her name must be put in nomination and there must be a roll call vote allowing the delegates Senator Clinton has earned and who represent more than 18 million Democratic voters, to cast their votes. The representation of those 18 million Democratic voters is the only acceptable means for conducting the convention regardless of outcome, and the only acceptable means that is in accordance with the democratic process.

To achieve these goals we have organized ourselves as a non-connected committee. By doing this we may not accept contributions in excess of $5,000 and we may not accept contributions from corporations or unions but it will give us greater flexibility in the messages we can send.

It will also let Howard Dean and the DNC know through our use of mass media that the messages being sent through our full page ads and tv commercials are being sent by an extremely large number of Democrats concerned with keeping the Democratic Party democratic and who are insisting that Senator Clinton's s name is on the ballot and that there be a roll call vote. It will also indicate to Dr. Dean and the DNC that there will be an extremely large number of disaffected Democrats if its not.

on Ralph Nader's comments suggesting Barack is "acting white":

You can't "act white".

This is a game I ain't playin', and I hope other people are as fed up with it as I am. Black is a description of race. Nobody has to (or can) audition for the role. You either are descended from African people or you aren't.

If you are descended from African people, you get to have pride in your heritage whether others approve of your behavior, clothes, attitude, etc. or not. That heritage is yours. It belongs to you. You don't have to earn it. It is your birthright. I don't know anything about African culture but I know that here in America, nobody - nobody - has the right to take your identity from you. You can be excommunicated from a bigot's church, but you cannot be excommunicated from your ancestry.
___________________________________________
*The term "Democrat", however, is a choice, a set of values that one embraces - so if Ralph Nader had accused Barack of acting Republican, that would be a different story....

Harriet Christian explains why the Michigan vote-gank struck her as crooked and rotten

"When they turned around and gave a candidate who opted to take his name off the ballot, was not asked to take his name off the ballot, received 59 votes - it's unacceptable."



This election is not a vote between Democrats vs. Republicans, and it is not Good vs. Evil.

This is a vote between Voters vs. the Media, and it is over who gets to choose the candidate - in other words, it is a vote between the middle (center-right and center-left being on the same side) vs. the extremist fringes (the wingnut right and, I am sorry to say, the wingnut left).

Most of America is toward the middle. There's a reason for that. Those who are out on the political fringes, convinced that they alone have Truth and those who disagree with them are Evil Incarnate - that doesn't stop being seriously disturbing, out-of-touch behavior just because the wingnut is on the left rather than the right. (Note to wingnuts: give it up and learn to care about someone other than those Just Like You. The diversity will do your soul some good.)

18 million cracks in the glass ceiling

Barack Obama responding to Clinton's speech by going golfing?

The Obama camp won’t say whether or not the presumptive Democratic nominee watched Clinton’s speech or not, but the candidate was seen leaving his house earlier today with golf clubs.

Guess "unity" really is her job.

Google "Clinton speech" and you get this marvelous picture:

Such grace. Such class. This is what unity (Democrat style) looks like, folks*.

I skipped past Obama Triumphs over Clinton in Democratic Presidential Nomination Race to find a headline that mentioned the woman actually making news (which is what I really want to read about) and I found this:

"This has been a tough fight, but the Democratic party is a family and now it's time to restore the ties that bind us together," she told cheering supporters at the National Building Museum in Washington.

"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won, the extraordinary race he has run and and I throw my full support behind him — and I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me," she said.

The metaphor of the family is unfortunate, in my opinion. That the party wants our manpower, our money and our votes on the one hand - while calling her the 'psycho ex-girlfriend of the Democratic party', comparing her to Fatal Attraction, and speaking repeatedly of violent imagery (take her into a room and only HE comes out), there is no way to avoid seeing the image of abusive men who hate both the wife and the children yet demand that they do their duty no matter what. They want nothing more than for her to leave, they say - but they are furious when she does things her way instead of their way, and they want our votes. Without, of course, actually giving us any reason. Courting means power, and power is not for us.

What a gruesome spectacle this party of "equal rights" is.
______________________________________
* Is the "heil" gesture some news guy's idea of parody, y'think?

contest of submission

So Barack does not want to offer Hillary the VP slot (which I am glad about, because I do not want her to take it), and the noises-that-be are indicating that Barack still wants that up to fifty per cent of the country (horizontally speaking) that is politically moderate and that up to fifty per cent of the country (vertically speaking) that is working class.

Those who argue for him, however, are doing their best to alienate further all the already-alienated.

Bob Herbert, showing that flair for deadpan:

Only now is the party starting to rally around Senator Barack Obama, who has been the likely nominee for the longest time. No one knows how long it will take to move beyond the fratricidal conflict that was made unnecessarily bitter by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Politico's Simon captures so perfectly the gloating tone found everywhere, in what is obviously an attempt to keep attention off the fact that Hillary Clinton is the only Presidential candidate who was not allowed to choose the timing of her own concession speech (but did anyway, deal with it if you can, just cross your legs or something). The word of the day is prance:

Barack Obama would like to remind you of something: He won and she didn’t. It’s about him now and not her. He has made history, and she is history.

Of course, it was always about him. Obama can't live in a universe that isn't about him. (That's why adolescent males (of all ages) adore him. Egocentrism attracts.)

And just to make sure that Clinton is humiliated for not bowing out on command (or at least attacked for daring to win pretty much all the big states, not to mention the popular vote) Politico adds a marvelous little caption:

The presumptive nominee may need to say no to his rival's push for the vice presidency.

That's what this is: unity by humiliation. Contest of submission!

Of course it never gets better than Maureen Dowd:

For months, Hillary has been trying to emasculate Obama with the sort of words and themes she has chosen, stirring up feminist anger by promoting the idea that the men were unfairly taking it away from the women, and covering up her own campaign mistakes with cries of sexism. Even his ability to finally clinch the historic nomination did not stop her in that pursuit. She did not bat her eyelashes at him and proclaim him Rhett Butler instead of Ashley Wilkes.

Yeah, he's historic, but how dare she have "feminist themes"*.

...by broadcasting that she’s open to being Obama’s running mate, she puts public pressure on him similar to the sort of pressure Walter Mondale was under from rampaging feminists when he put Geraldine Ferraro on the ticket. Mondale ended up seeming henpecked, as Obama would seem if he caved to the women who say they will write in Hillary’s name or vote for anti-choice McCain before they’d vote for Obama.

Well. That put us in our place, all right. We don't do our duty and the menfolk come across as henpecked, not all strong and manly as a man ought**.

Sad thing is, if Obama could have won legitimately, so many would have supported him - but he doesn't want to. His goal has always been to deliver our party to new masters.

Blame or gloat? Oh heck - if you're in the Obama camp, why not do both? It certainly was a lot of work to make sure the women (and a bunch of others) in the Democratic party knew exactly how much the Democratic party hates them. Why not celebrate?
________________________________________
* Maureen no doubt thinks Hillary would have made a better candidate if she'd dyed her hair prostitute red and worn vampy dresses.

** If Herbert gives us irony straight-faced, Maureen gives us...herpes. I never know what to make of her. Or Rush. Or Ann Coulter. Or any of the wingnuts - either side of the political aisle. Someone should run on a truly sustainable energy platform based on harnessing the anger that is currently redirected via these columns. You could power at least Cincinnati.

The ruling: the votes can count, but only if we adjust for the votes as we woulda liked for it to have been instead of, you know...

...the way thing actually are?

There's been a lot of talk about party unity - let's all come together, and put our arms around each other. I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, hijacking four delegates ... is not a good way to start down the path of party unity.
- Harold Ickes

The solution to seating the delegates: since of course we're pre-committed to the idea that Hillary Clinton is not going to be our nominee no matter what, we can seat the delegates with "only" the penalties that the rulebook actually provided for situations like these, but more must be done - because Clinton might actually win.

See, the thing is, rules are rules, but there are times when rules don't count. See, it just wouldn't be fair to Obama for anything to benefit Hillary. So let's rewrite the vote totals to include the votes Obama "should have" gotten.

And the media will allow just a little bit of coverage of the enraged (and freshly insulted) Dem base, but only so long as we emphasize how appropriate that there's a zoo nearby*...

WASHINGTON -- The hotel where the 30 Democratic rule makers met Saturday -- to decide whether rules are rules or whether rules are made to be broken -- was within howling distance of the National Zoo.

Outside the stately Marriott Wardman Park Hotel were clusters of women with "Hear Me Roar" placards in their fists who came from all over the country -- $4 a gallon be damned -- to make what could be a last stand for their Hillary....

...and only so long as we drop in the new meme, that it's unfair to the people who voted but it's even more unfair to the ones who didn't, but could have.

None of that was the voters' fault (did they set the calendar?), and who winds up getting punished? The voters.

And not just the voters who voted, but also the voters who didn't vote -- the ones who might have turned out had they not been told about a million times that their votes weren't going to count. Who knows how they would have spoken.

To the DNC, the key to democracy means tinkering with certified election results as needed to make things...well, "fair"**.

And we have to accommodate all those poor unfortunates who would have voted, if only they...well, had voted.

Harold Ickes, a member of the committee and a top adviser to Clinton, said the panel had "hijacked" delegates belonging to Clinton.

"I am stunned that we have the gall and chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000" people who voted in Michigan, he said. "Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee."

Ahh, but who cares about legitimacy in elections? Certainly not the media - they've got priorities, and they know who pays 'em. And certainly not the DNC - they made that clear yesterday.

So - time to party, eh***? If you can't win honestly, well - so long as you win.

Democratic strategists say they expect Obama to secure a majority of convention delegates and put the final touches on an historic run for the presidential nomination by the middle of this week. Enough additional superdelegates are likely to ratify his victory over Clinton, once the final primary votes are cast, they said, to put him over the top.

Obama, who said the other day that he expected the general election campaign to start this week, plans to stage a victory rally Tuesday night...

But in the end - Obama won't. Win, that is. And neither will any real Democrats****.

...several hundred Hillary Clinton supporters chanted "Count every vote!" and waved signs announcing "Count my vote or count me out." A smaller number of Barack Obama supporters kept their distance. One woman, passing by a 4-year-old girl and her mother carrying pro-Clinton signs, shouted at them: "Cheater!"

The chaos and vitriol seemed to confirm Democrats' fears that they might blow an election that should otherwise be an easy victory for them. Nor did the party's compromise fit well with the Democrats' oft-voiced commitment to voting rights.

Superdelegates: This is what November will look like

She’s not going to get over it.

You still have a choice.

Do the right thing.

update: reading the comments at firedoglake (apparently where this video originates) and other "progressive" blogs, I am stunned at how the "winning" candidate's backers, the ones who defended Rev. Wright's righteous pulpit-humping, and still support Obama after seeing Pfleger make an obscenity of himself, think this woman (above) needs to be 'more civil'.

Apparently whether your behavior is civil or not, in their world, is not based by how you actually behave, but rather on whether the outrage is justified or not - whether one's opinion matches the Opinions That We Have Deemed Worthy vs. the opinions that people just shouldn't have.

This woman out-and-out suggested that the raving hatred of white women vs. the special rules for black people thing is unfair. This automatically makes her evil and therefore worthy of degrading jabs based on her being (a) old and (b) a woman. (Mother is not supposed to be a dirty word, guys. 'Course we all know you hate your own mommies - because they didn't raise you to be respectful toward them or any other women.)

I'd say attacking this woman for being old and female should be out, we should stick to the issue, but that appears to be the issue. People should be young and beautiful and should obey the rules for what looks good. Old women violate everything Obama's "movement" stands for.

These people also blame Hillary for Obama's total unelectability. They still don't see anything wrong with him, or with what happened. They don't see any disconnect at all between their own raving raging hatred of old white women on the one hand, vs. their expectation that these old white women should fall in line like worthless old white bats just ought and vote for the candidate they're goddamned told to goddamned vote for.

(shudder)

I am working on a way to define the difference between "angry" vs. out-and-out "hateful". I don't want to be the way they are. I think I might start with a list of what I object to most about them - for instance, the hypocrisy of calling people bigots even as you jeer at them for their age, cheer the rancid lady screaming about "white trash", and laugh at the misogynistic jokes. Maybe after I write down all the things that make me dislike them so much, I can get control over how they are infesting my reality, and the immune system can get a grip. But I do not want to be serene. I think there is a time for anger - it exists for a reason, it really does. And the key to me is to articulate what is actually wrong (vs. just hating on the other people), and what needs to change - the first step to fixing something is setting good goals....

It has to come back to ethics. Real ethics. We need to rediscover integrity. We really really do.


___________________________________
* "hear me roar" - Helen Reddy song, "I am woman, hear me roar" - put them next to the zoo, because feminists are like animals - DID YA GET IT? DID YA GET IT?

** on the bright side, at least we won't be hearing much more about affirmative action "never hurt anyone".

*** or is that time to crash the party?

**** our votes were stolen, suppressed, manipulated, minimized. "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" Something to think about when you read press coverage of those enraged Obama supporters calling us "cheaters":

Our candidate is running on the idea that votes need to be earned.

The other candidate is the one relying on the idea that votes are something to demand, steal, suppress, manipulate, minimize, and in the end, declare oneself entitled to.

on failing to dodge the entitlement trap

It is astonishing to me that this year of all years the Republicans could win big. But Republicans are the ones with the general public on their side on the issue that is coming to dominate the narratives - entitlement.

Eugene Robinson* is a perfect argument for entitlement. Reality is racist, and therefore must not be allowed to vote:

As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African-Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry.

How silly of me. I thought the Democratic Party believed in a colorblind America.

By using (wasting) his big guns** on Clinton, there will be nothing left to aim at Republicans if they really do make it all about race. If Obama tries to whine, they'll laugh at him. They're already laughing. To them, the words "swing states" already sounds like a punchline.

But Obama has done more than just waste a weapon - he has handed that weapon to the Republicans:

...because under the politically correct rules of engagement preferred by the Obama camp, only the Illinois senator gets to make ex cathedra observations about such ticklish matters as race and class, which must be treated as infallible. Pundits like Herbert and The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson have been chattering about the so-called “Bradley effect” ever since New Hampshire, but the Clinton camp must not. Why not ? Because contrary to conventional wisdom, it wasn’t the Clintons who “racialized” the campaign at all.

From the same op-ed:

Screaming “racist” at people—I’ve received a grand total of two e-mails from Obama supporters that didn’t—only makes things worse. Real bigots don’t care, while Clinton supporters increasingly resent the accusation. (My skin’s thicker than most. ) Most also think it’s a foolhardy way to avoid discussing the realities of the Electoral College, which is what Clinton was trying to do. Regardless of why working-class white voters don’t support Obama, no Democrat can win without them.

(emphasis mine)

There is one issue that is absolutely nonnegotiable to most working class white voters. That is the issue of whether or not they exist, whether they matter, whether they can or should be written off the map. And Obama has done nothing but insult them. Repeatedly. It's almost as if he is trying to throw the election to the Republicans (and in fact the conspiracy theories have already begun whispering just that).

Instead of seriously considering why the working class dislikes Obama, everyone just keeps screaming racist, racist, racist. Entire states are being thrown out by Democrats making such confused statements about race that I can't tell if they are arguing that Obama must be the nominee because whites aren't really racist, or whether he must be the nominee because whites really are racist. I almost wonder if they are trying to imply that white Democrats are racist but white Republicans won't be?

Whatever it is they are saying, they seem to be falling into the trap liberals always fall into - arguing about the way things should be and forgetting to look at the way things really are.

Consider the reaction to what Pat Buchanan said:

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

It's like watching a magician pull Democratic disunity out of a hat.

Misdirection: Dems fall to arguing about why that is an immoral claim to make, missing the fact that what is really relevant is political, not moral.

Misdirection: Dems react to the exaggerated either-or in that "grievances vs. gratitude". Not fair-minded or gracious enough to acknowledge where credit is due, liberals make the huge strategic blunder of discounting the efforts and sacrifices that have already been made.

This is how Republicans keep control. It's called know your opposition. And Republicans are good at it, but Democrats, as always, are absolutely bewildered at thought processes that fail to conform with how everything should be.

While Democrats are arguing about what people should feel, Republicans are going to use this issue to not only defeat Obama, but also to put to rest (hopefully forever) the very idea of affirmative action, which is going to be in tatters after this***.

And no, I am not saying there is no racism in America anymore. If this were an argument about affirmative action I would say its flaw is that it doesn't work and it has unintended consequences and that it also has ethical problems, in that the whites who are punished are not the same whites who are guilty of the sin. But the real point is, we know that affirmative action is unpopular. That is why Obama started out as a "post-racial" candidate. That is presumably why it was viewed as "playing the race card" for Bill Clinton to mention Jesse Jackson - and incidentally, I think that's a real insult to Jesse Jackson, who unlike Obama has the courage to own what he says and to run on what he really believes.

The Democratic party has not been updating its reality regularly. Their fussbudget hostility toward anything that sounds politically incorrect has made them unable to accept feedback, and now they are living in a world that bears no resemblance to life outside the lilywhite (or its mirror, the antiwhite - both locked in a black-or-white world).

We don't realize how bad this disconnect is because we have fallen into using race words as a code for social class. As in "Stuff White People Like" (a site that really should be labeled "Stuff Upper Middle Class People Like"). Or arguments over whether expecting kids to pull up their pants or speak English are racist demands (even as we blame white parents for not wanting their kids in the same classroom). Both blacks and whites who fail to conform to expectations are banished - blacks are excommunicated from their skin color, while the op-ed writers at the New York Times and the Washington Post erase people using the Orwellian absence of words, freely equating "white" with "rich" until there just aren't any whites outside of the ones you meet at the country club. They use the same strategy Barack Obama lives on: when poorer whites absolutely must exist, it's with loud sniffing noises and in-your-face insults.

It is a perverse sort of logic that says that if Appalachia won't vote for the Democrat, it becomes a top priority to figure out how to win without Appalachia.

Democrats have refused to stand up for principles of equality and it's coming back to them now. I expect certain rich men will whine and sob into their beautifully manicured hands about how nobody likes them because everyone is racist. The truth is, we don't like you because you have treated other people badly, and we do not agree that our white skin makes us dirty enough to justify your bigotry.

Ultimately, the Democratic party will fail because Pat Buchanan has a point: the Democrats have set themselves up as the fair ones - but they have not been fair.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

The important thing to understand here is not that Pat Buchanan is right but that there's no reason why Pat Buchanan should not be allowed to argue his point.

Republicans don't share Democratic party assumptions. The most important assumption that is not shared is the one about personal responsibility. Democrats believe that people are all about being shaped by their environment - but Republicans don't. They believe in choice. They reject entitlement.

On this particular issue, more Americans agree with the Republicans. Democrats are therefore in trouble if Obama gets the nomination - seeing, as we do now, that he is a flawed candidate, but that we must give him the nomination because he is "entitled" to it.
__________________________
*That piece is called, beautifully enough, "Desperate Clinton is Danger to the Party". They did not, however, include the illustration - you know, with the pickaxe. I think the bits of flesh falling from her face might have scared young children or something.

**Another big problem with Robinson's argument: it's demonstrably untrue. Eugene Robinson never believed in a colorblind America and he never believed anyone else did, either.

***Those who still deny that there is something wrong with affirmative action would do well to quit preaching bigotry against poor and conspicuously uneducated white folk & go find out why they're so angry. One issue that could come up might involve how tough it is to get financial aid to finish college - when there isn't enough need-based aid to go around, and minorities get preference.