LARRY ELDER COMMENTARY: Obama Or Not, America Is Still A 'Ra

The libertarian Republican commentator discusses conflicting Democratic views about Sen. Obama's influence on race relations: "Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., a black Clinton supporter, explained why whites vote for Obama. According to Cleaver, 'This is (their) chance to demonstrate that we have been able to get this boogeyman called race behind us. And so they are going to vote for him, whether he has credentials or not, whether he has any experience…' Here's where things get interesting. As to the argument that an Obama election would show an America overcoming its history of racial injustice, Cleaver says no, it would show the opposite. 'Yet Cleaver asserts,' according to an Associated Press article, 'that Obama as president could actually hamper efforts to curb racial injustice. He said future concerns about race 'would be met with rejection because we've already demonstrated that we're not a racist nation.' In other words, whites cleverly intend to vote for Obama -- not because they consider him qualified or the better candidate, but so that they can diminish future allegations of alleged racism and racial injustice. But Cleaver sees through the plot. To Cleaver, America remains a 'racist nation.' And Obama as president simply pulls the wool over the eyes of America, minimizing the continued and future victims of racism, while giving America's racists free rein to continue their deviousness."

He continues his commentary: "Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, another Clinton supporter, makes the opposite argument. Ferraro claims that Obama's race gives him an advantage that obscures his otherwise thin resume. 'If Obama was a white man,' said Ferraro, 'he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.' Black state Sen. Robert Ford, D-S.C., also a Clinton supporter, takes the Cleaver position. In explaining his refusal [last year] to support Obama, Ford said, 'It's a slim possibility for (Obama) to get the nomination, but then everybody else is doomed. Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose because he's black and he's top of the ticket. We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything. I'm a gambling man. I love Obama. But I'm not going to kill myself.' Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can now breathe easier. If Obama loses, blame race. If Obama wins, blame race. Either way, Obama's election, as regards race relations, means nothing. So Jackson and Sharpton and the rest of the like-minded traveling circus can remain in the business of ferreting out, exploiting and often exaggerating allegations of racism for face time on TV and continued relevance."

And more: "In 1911, former slave Booker T. Washington prophetically wrote about 'black leaders' like Cleaver, Jackson and Sharpton: 'There is (a) class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.…There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."

 

All these people are morons. So Clinton supporters are saying he is winning because he is black. Republicans are saying the same thing. And when both of them are confronted they say the person confronting them is the racist. I remember watching Larry Elder's show. That guy is just ridiculous. He is just as bad as Jackson and Sharpton except on the opposite side of the spectrum. If a white employer slap around a black employee and called him racist names. Larry Elder would defend the white employer.

 

Women like Geraldine Ferraro and Gloria Steinem are so wrapped in the struggles they have as women...that now they feel the need to belittle him and cry that Hillary's is the victim of gender bias. She doesn't get bad press coverage because she is a woman...it's because she is LOSING....and her campaign has made some bad decisons...when she was the "presumptive nominee" all of her press coverage is good.


As for the "who has it harder" debate....a black man or a white woman in the U.S.A.....well I can't answer that because I am not...nor will I ever be a woman....but last time I looked in my history textbook...I didn't see WW being hung from trees and having their genitalia cut off because they were looking at a black man the wrong way.


Another way to look at it is this.....Black women. Ask most black women about what is a bigger hurdle to success....gender or race? I've done an informal survey of 8 sistas I know....and they all say RACE.




You have SOME people voting for Obama...so they can absolve themselves of any racist guilt.......but you also have an equal if not larger contingent of people voting for Hillary because they are racist and feel no guilt in stopping Obama.


I think for most people....they vote for the candidate of their choice because they like THAT CANDIDATE....they aren't voting against the other guy (or girl).


You can't really take what Elder says seriously.....using his logic....Clarence Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court would fall under the same category. A relatively inexperienced man in his field that rose to the top of his profession like a phoenix......under controversial circumstances.


This is how each party negates the impact that can be had when 'people of color' are voted (or appointed) in to positions of power. The GOP and Democrats are intimidated each time the other side places a minority in a key position because they feel that it could cost them votes and political capital. When Thomas in 1991....and later Condoleeza Rice were given the reins of authority...Democrats talked about how there was some tokenism involved in the decisions (of course Dems. couldn't say it as loudly because they rely too heavily on black support). Republicans are saying it now with Obama....and that has to do with the fact that he has a clear shot at winning.





DONT LET THE GOP FOOL YOU......THEY ARE MIGHTILY AFRAID OF OBAMA. THEIR SMUGNESS IS AN ATTEMPT TO LULL PEOPLE INTO THINKING THAT MCCAIN WILL HANDLE HIM THE WAY TIGER WOODS HANDLES A GOLF CLUB. HILLARY CLINTON HAS ACTUALLY DONE OBAMA A FAVOR...ALL THE DIRT UNDER OBAMA'S FINGERNAILS WILL GET SHOWN OVER AND OVER....THE ONLY THING THE GOP WILL BE ABLE TO DO IN THE FALL IS REHASH WHAT HILLARY HAS ALREADY BROUGHT OUT. MCCAIN'S SKELETONS MEANWHILE, HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN DRUGGED OUT OF THE CLOSET YET...THE MEDIA IS PLAYING NICE RIGHT NOW...BUT THEY WON'T IN THE FALL. DESPITE NOT RUNNING THE BEST CAMPAIGN...SHE IS LIKELY BETTER THAN ANYTHING JOHN MCCAIN SAW IN THE GOP PRIMARY.....IMAGINE MCCAIN AND OBAMA GOING ONE-ON-ONE IN A TOWNHALL DEBATE.....OBAMA WOULD WIPE THE FLOOR WITH HIM.


THE GOP IS GOING TO TRY AND PLAY DIRTY...AND THAT WILL PLAY RIGHT INTO OBAMA'S HANDS....I GUARANTEE YOU THAT HE WILL WARN EVERYONE ABOUT WHAT IS COMING (527 ADS) AND THE GOP WILL LOOK FOOLISH TRYING TO USE 2004 TACTICS....AND THE SMARMY GUISE OF PATRIOTISM TO BEAT HIM....THIS ISN'T A PATRIOTISM.."I LOVE AMERICA" ELECTION.....THIS IS AN ELECTION ABOUT HOW TO CHANGE THE COURSE WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING.

 

All of these things you mention are valid, but the GOP wouldn't be using those scare tactics if they didn't work.

Honestly, i don't want to sound like a pessimist here. i love Barack and will support him till the end but i'm bracing myself for November so i can at least swallow it when this guy loses. Because, man, i tell you, Barack ain't winning shit. Because let me tell you something, Hillary's camp - even though they've given up all hope - will continue to dig up more and more shit about Obama and put it out there. And i mean really devastating things concerning the likes of "crazy" preachers, "anti-Semitism" and patriotism. She's going to keep destroying his chances so McCain will win in November and then she'd win this thing in 2012. That's Cankles' backup plan, people.

We ain't even in June yet and Obama is already trailing in the polls. Yet Hillary is doing better in a matchup against McCain.

That is no coincidence. Even if Obama picks the whitest man in America as his running mate, he'll still lose those battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri and Colorado. These states have the middle-of-the-road, socially conservative, working class white people that have avoided him like the plague, except Wisconsin and Virginia. I really don't see how that is going to change in a one-on-one against McCain. Despite all of this bullshit about people being moved by Obama's change, post-partisan politics and a race-neutral campaign, Americans are still gullible and vulnerable when it comes to the politics of fear. I say this at the risk of sounding "anti-American" but i don't care what anyone else things. You really think it's a coincidence that we always get "terror alerts" whenever election cycles come up and Republicans are in a bad shape? Can you consistently argue that Nixon's "law and order" bullshit wasn't packaged in the box of race? Is there still anyone out there who doesn't believe Willie Horton, Jesse Helms' "Hands" commercial and the infamous "Call me" ad didn't have racial overtones to them?

Well, if your answer to all three questions are no, then perhaps you need to see a psychotherapist because i tell you, you are fucked up mentally. Americans, by and large, believe everything they see in the media and Barack can be "post-racial" all he wants, when whites see Republican ads taking snippets of Rev. Wright's comments and link them to Obama, they'll depart from him in droves. Or those ads questioning his patriotism and (oh yes) playing on the similarities between his last name and that of a certain Saudi terrorist who currently resides in Waziristan and is America's most wanted person. Believe me, "change" and "yes we can" will vanish instantly in the face of all those ads.

It really is amazing how time flies. This time last year, we were debating Obama's blackness. Now we are talking about him being too black as to scare away whites. Gee, i guess the saying "easy come, easy go" really rings true.

 

Where was Steinem when Shirley Chisholm ran in 72? I saw a documentary of that election and she chosen McGovern over her.

 

I wouldn't pay any attention to potential presidential match-up polls with John McCain right now. He is the GOP nominee...and no one is battling him...so his numbers are going to look good. This is a rarity...because generally..it seems that both parties' races end around the same time....McCain's ability to lure independents helps him...but he is weaker amongst the ultra-right wing base...which means some of them will be inclined to stay at home...(not many but a few). This is as good as it will get for McCain...because no one is really covering him or examining in great detail, anything he says...that will change at the end of the summer.


As for the scare tactics the GOP uses....that will only work on people that have no intention of voting for Obama in the first place. Regardless of what polls say...anyone who is willing to vote for Hillary (or McCain in the general election) simply because of a few remarks by a RETIRED pastor....clearly never intended to vote for Obama. They may claim to the news media that they were voting for Obama...and certain remarks changed their mind...but we all know that is total B.S. He is bringing in a lot of new voters and voters that hadn't considered casting a ballot....that's power. Most of the Hillary were going to vote for her regardless.....and many of the GOP people will vote for McCain because he gives them the best shot at winning....but not because they are inspired by him.


What helps Obama is that he can change the electoral map. Hillary's gen. election strategy would be to win the states John Kerry won in '04 and then turn either Florida or Ohio 'blue' and win the election. Obama is unique in that he could actually win the election by carrying a state like Virginia (for example) and not needing Florida or Ohio to win it all.


The key for Obama is to make this argument (and he needs to make the argument to "middle of the road, social conservatives" : He needs to ask them if they are happy with the path this nation has taken....he needs to ask them about jobs, the economy, the war etc. Of course they will say they hate everything that is happening.....then he must ask them if they want to continue traveling this road to failure......they will say no....then he needs to ask them if they are better off now than they were 8 years ago.....again...they will say no.....and then Obama will say....if you aren't happy with the way things are going....change what you are doing.....you can't expect things to get better by repeating past mistakes.

 

I have to agree with Chosen on this one, those fear tactics are only going to work on people who wern't gonna vote for Obama anyway. Its gonna work on republicans and that 28% of Hillary supporters who are racist and said they won't vote for Obama. I've seen the polls showing Hillary doing better than Mccain and its only by 3 percentage points, I could see if it was a significant number like 10-15pts. Three measly points is a virtual tie IMO. Again, Mccain is doing well in the polls because he is the republican nominee, he's sitting pretty while the democrats fight tooth and nail blooding each other up, of course his numbers are gonna look good in a match up agianst both democrats.

Hillary is fooling folks with this arguement about her winning battle ground states like OH and FL. First of all FL isn't going blue no matter who the nominee is. I live here and know first hand the ignorance is so strong here that people would vote for Geroge W if he ran again in 08. Many people still have their Bush/Cheney 04 bumper stickers proudly on the back of their cars. Florida is out of the question for dems. With that said, Obama could easily make the arugement that other swing states like VA, SC, MN, WI, Chi and CO could go blue in the GE, Obama has a good chance of winning at least 5 out 6 of those states, which would cancel out FL & OH should they both go red. Which would most likely happen.

You know what makes no sense to me, how could Hillary be winning in a head to head match up against Mccain, but is loosing in the head to head match up against Obama. I think a percentage of her supporters are purposely voting against Obama in the Mccain vs Obama polls. In the lastest poll, Mccain is actually beating Clinton and Obama is beating Mccain by 1%. They are all basically tied up, but these Mccain vs Obama/Clinton polls are irrelevent because Mccain hasn't been scrutinzied the way Obama and Hillary have.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

The bottom line is, Obama can win if he can get at least 40% of Hillary's supporters to vote for him in the GE. Already 28% of her supporters said they won't vote for him. He just needs the remaining 72% to help win the election, and I think it could happen.