by Bud White
Recent polls show that approximately 30% of Hillary voters could defect to McCain if Obama is the nominee. That such a large swath of Democratic voters might defect should be disconcerting to superdelegates, to say the least. I've been reflecting for several weeks on my own unease with Obama, a man who was once my second choice for president.
Last month I attended a Passover dinner and the conversation predictably turned to politics. (For those who don't know, a Passover Seder is perhaps the first liberation theology ceremony, celebrating the Jewish people's Exodus from slavery in Egypt).
One of my dinner companions was a computer salesman from New Jersey and an avid Obama supporter. I told him that Obama's (largely) successful effort to paint the Clintons as racists had me doubting if I could vote for him if he were the nominee. He responded by saying that it was good politics and showed that Obama was willing to do whatever it took to win.
His acknowledging that Obama has been playing racial politics has me rethinking the idea of a racial dog-whistle, the notion that only African Americans, for example, understand that when Obama says "hoodwink, okie-doke, bamboozled," he means that the Clintons are treating them like fools, attempting to undermine the Clintons' hard-earned reputations as advocates for all Americans.
Most Americans who are paying attention, I suggest, understand Obama's use of race. Obama's problems with Bitter-gate and Rev. Wright underscore that Obama is not the uniter he claims to be, but rather a shrewd practitioner of identity politics.
I think most Americans are more culturally literate and less racist than the neo-liberals think (and perhaps as some neo-liberals are), regardless of their income bracket. Hillary voters understand that Obama, in cahoots with the Obamablogs and much of the media, has been willing to do whatever it takes to derail Hillary, and this includes smearing the Clintons as racists.
The Democratic Party consists of two warring factions, and the precarious coalition that forms the Party is on the verge of splitting apart. Working class whites are not naive to Obama's shenanigans. They've watched as the Obama team has smeared perhaps the most racially progressive president in our history as a racist, and they've seen Obama ridicule their concerns, faith, and culture.
The Obama campaign would like the superdelegates to believe that African Americans will revolt if Obama is not given the nomination. The more likely outcome-and this has actually been quantified, is that working-class whites will go with McCain if Hillary is not the nominee.
This is not because working class whites are racist but because Obama represents a wing of the party which encourages the trashing of poor white people, lacks an economic focus for their needs, and excuses the racist and America-hating rants of Reverend Wright.
Obama's cold-hearted tacticians aren't using these tactics because they are concerned about the plight of African Americans. They are trying to scare superdelegates about racial issues and smear the Clintons.
Update [2008-3-12 17:34:41 by susanhu]: (TWO VIDEOS: The second is a must-see from the NBC affiliate in Chicago.) RezkoWatch: "This video is always a valuable—and vivid—reminder of the living conditions in Obama's district:"
√ Eleven Rezmar buildings were in the state Senate district Obama represented between 1996 and 2004. Many of the buildings ended up in foreclosure, with tenants living in squalid conditions, the Sun-Times reported last year. In one instance, Rezko's company left tenants without heat for five weeks. Obama said he was unaware of problems with the buildings and minimized the legal work he'd done. -- From the Chicago Sun-Times via District 299 The Chicago Schools Blog.
√√√ Obama said in the interview Monday that he was unaware of the scope of properties owned by Rezmar or the problems surrounding them. He said none of the affected residents personally sought his help and that aides at his state Senate district office did not recall any inquiries. Still, he said it was "possible" that during his tenure in the legislature that a constituent may have written or called his office "saying, 'We're in a building, and we're unhappy with the service here.'"
Such problems, he said, would normally be brought to the attention of an alderman or the city's Housing Department. "Had I known that there were buildings that were in deteriorating or poor condition, that certainly would have given me pause. But I didn't know," Obama said. -- From the Chicago Tribune.
"I didn't know," he says? It'd give you "pause"? Oh really?
Update [2008-3-3 9:0:24 by susanhu]: At the conclusion, there's an excellent, fully sourced timeline of Obama's denials of this meeting, now obliterated by the emergence of the Canadian diplomats' memorandum distributed widely to Canadian officials -- and now in the hands not only of the A.P. but CNN's John Roberts, he just reported.
"Obama, you are busted."
That was Larry Johnson's response tonight when I showed him the New York Times/A.P. story just published that confirms what the Obama camp has scurried away from: That Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee contacted officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago and assured them that they should not worry about Obama's remarks about NAFTA.
Goolsbee, reported national Canadian media giant CTV.ca, "said that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric."
The A.P. has obtained the actual memorandum produced by the Canadian consulate as a record of its meeting. (How that works, and the regular preparation of a memorandum to record such meetings, is explained by Larry Johnson below, and is a must-read to understand how diplomatic meetings are conducted.) That Canadian consulate-prepared memorandum, which Goolsbee denies is accurate, states:
"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him [BELOW THE FOLD] wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.
"This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.
"We will not be distracted."
Right on, Maggie. Do you remember this photo in the New York Times following Bhutto's tragic assassination? And remember the reprehensible attack from Obama/Deval Patrick media/messager provider David Axelrod following Bhutto's murder?
jeromearmstrong Our Polarized and Money-Driven Congress: Created Over 25 Years By Republicans (and Quickly Imitated by Democrats http://bit.ly/ewXlXI #bblue
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------