I'm 'bout fucking tired of this shit.

No, supporting Clinton does NOT mean you are invariably racist. No more than my support of Obama means that I am a mindless robot.

And no one gives a fuck if you vote for Cynthia McKinney. Go ahead. I'll do the same if Clinton finagles her way into the nomination. Hell, I voted Nader in 2000 because there was no way Georgia was going to anyone other than Bush. Had I lived in Florida, though, you can bet your ass I'd have voted Gore. I'll be voting Obama come November because the combination of his popularity, his stockpiled donations, the ambivalence of so many in the center toward the GOP, and Bob Barr running as a Libertarian means that Obama might actually have a shot in hell at taking Georgia. If Clinton is the candidate, though, there's no chance for her to win.

Why? Because she is reviled by the right. When my upper class, committed Republican extended family frets about our nation's immediate future, it's ALWAYS, "What'll happen if SHE gets elected?" Not once has anyone expressed concern about Obama. Is this because they'd prefer his policies to hers? No. As we've already seen, heard, and discussed on end, their policies are not that different. No, the reason Obama doesn't get their panties in bunches is that he hasn't been the focus of a massive character assassination for the past 16 years. Even if their rational minds don't truly believe everything that's been said about the Clintons, there's still enough doubt and animosity in there to see her as the worst possible person we could have in charge. Meanwhile, all the right has on Obama is "He's Muslim" and "His preacher hates America" which are mutually exclusive. Sure, there's the flag lapel pin bullshit and the "OhmyGodhe'llactuallyusediplomacyhe'sanappeaser" head-up-assery, (yeah, I made it up) but I'd love to see such things brought up during a debate with McCain. Obama would make him look even more like the doddering old fool of a warmonger he is.

I feel for Hillary (and Bill) for what they went through back in the day. Really. But I don't give a damn if any of what's been said by the left during this campaign bothers them. The fact is that everything I've read on CD regarding the Clintons is deserved. Apart from posts calling anyone who criticizes her and/or supports Obama an "Obamabot", that is.

Back to McKinney. Great. Go for it. But if you live in a state that may actually be up for grabs and vote for McKinney over Obama, then you lose the right to call yourself a progressive. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson after 2000. Disparage our two-party system, the similarities of the parties, and the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils all you want. Lord knows I do. But can everyone in Florida who voted Nader in 2000 admit that we'd likely be a lot better off now had Gore won? Can we not all acknowledge that Obama would be far better for the US and the world than McCain?

Can we not all shut the fuck up about the Democratic nomination? Call me an Obamabot (like I'd need to prompt you), but it's over. Obama's won by every democratic measurement. Popular vote, states, delegates, superdelegates...He's even raked in huge sums while her campaign's in the red and missing payments. You want people to stop bashing her? Get her to withdraw.

I live in PA and did not vote for Obama. I did not vote for Obama, despite voting for many other black candidates in the past, because Obama doesn't speak to me. I don't get this almost cult-like devotion to him. I don't know what he did in "rebuilding communities" in Chicago. I think one of the worst things that ever happened to this country was NAFTA but I still voted for Hillary. Why... because she is actually offering solutions to the excesses of NAFTA. I heard both of these candidates speak here in PA and frankly, I didn't hear Obama offer any real solutions to the issues that many Pennsylvanians (and I assume people in other states) care about Hillary offered a real plan to make college more affordable to the children of the middle income classes. Obama did not. Hillary offers real universal health care coverage and she and Bill Clinton explain why it must be universal in order for it to work. Obama admits that his plan leaves out millions of people. Hillary gave specifics about how to bring eco-jobs to all the states. Obama talks about it but offers no real plans. Hillary had Republican farmers from upstate NY campaigning for her here in PA. They said she was the only politician who helped them keep their family farms. This is a big issue in the central part of PA (I live in the eastern portion of the state). Obama doesn't seem to understand the many ways that people make a living and how its all connected. Examples: revitalizing the inner cities must be tied to maintaining rural and small town life; each is dependent on the other. Obama just didn't relate to this. I am sick to death of being told that those of us who voted for Hillary are racist. In defense of blue collar and small town Democrats in this state (and perhaps WV too?) I point out that for 25 years we've been inundated with right wing pundits telling us that the Democratic Party is anti-God, anti-guns and pro-immigration (code word for white supremacy). If the blue collar, small town Dems of PA really felt that guns, immigration and right-wing Christianity were the main issues to vote on, they would have already left the Democratic Party. But they've stuck with this Party because they really vote their pocketbooks. This year, Hillary struck a cord with them and Obama did not.

ticonderoga May 17th, 2008 9:02 pm

What I was tryibg to say was that using the same tired old stereotype is just that. Its tired and old.

Her point is primarily that Obama doesn't get these votes because of racism. Of course thats in part true, though I'd bet he loses more in the Mid-West than the South. But her central thesis is supposed to be about MSM and talk radio...but it sure looked to me like a racist attack on whites between each line.

Maybe she should "pimp slap" me.

My real point is that there are legitimate questions about Obama and this type of thinking, these accusations aren't helpful. You can't refute them by accusations of racism.

I'd go further, if Obama supporters keep the scream of racism going every time they lose or get a bad result.....say hello to President McCain.

Bernestine Singley could have recited all the wonderful things Obama wants to do and told you why you should vote for him. Instead we get another lecture on the irredeemable racism and ignorance of the white working class.
This run for president is not going to turn on race, or gender. A Democrat will almost certainly win because the Republicans have screwed things up so badly. If the people Shipley condemns as pawns had another choice - Ross Perot, or a Ralph Nader with the bucks to get on all the state ballots -they would vote for him. There is no choice so a Democrat will probably win by default.

It's like the story about the two construction workers who got fired- They picked up their paychecks and went across the street for a refreshing beverage. The bartender said what are you guys doing here so early. We got fired they said. Why did you get fired he asked the first one. "I cut a lot of expensive material too short, so I got the ax." And what did you do to get fired he asked the second guy. "I didn't do anything wrong, I was just watching him."

That's the way the two-party system works -- the party in majority screws everything up and the other party just watches. Now the Democrats will screw everything up and the Republicans will watch. A third or fourth party might take enough seats from the two parties to form a majority often enough to prevent the kind of total meltdown the Republicans have produced.

This election will not be a fair or valid test of whether a majority of voters will vote for a black man or a white woman. The reason is simple. Both Democrats have an anti-Democratic agenda.
A majority of white, Black, and brown voters oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. (it will increase the legal supply of labor by at least 12 million, driving down wages) Hillary and Obama are for amnesty big time.
Both Democrats have voted to fund a war the public opposes. Both candidates are free traders. A permanent majority of voters have opposed free-trade for at least 15 years.
On the most important issues for Democratic voters, both candidates are giving the voters the political equivalent of the bird. Why would a rational voter support a candidate who opposes everything they think is important? (I)f Hillary or Obama had a democratic agenda and the majority of voters rejected them, that would surely be bias against a white woman or black man.
It is enlightened self-interest, rather than racism, to refuse support candidates who oppose your interests and values. Spare me the blather about racism (or sexism) and tell me what your candidate has done to earn the support of the voters.

"false assertion that he has a problem with all blue collar whites, rather than just the Southern and Southern-thinking ones. Whether they do this from ignorance or with malice makes no difference."

The above quote, Thomas More, doesn't really sound like a racist statement to me. Instead, it sounds like a statement about the mindset of people in a specific geographical area. And it's certainly true that it really doesn't matter why someone has a problem with voting for a candidate because he or she is black. It only matters that the someone is question has the problem in question.

"I think Clinton should sue the MSM for illegal electioneering, primarily the non-stop dismissal of the viability of her campaign, which very well could have caused voters to stay home. This is as bad as broadcasting election results before polls close."

Atheist, I think that just about ALL the candidates should sue the MSM for illegal electioneering, not just Clinton. In fact, I think the American people should bring a class-action suit against the MSM for this very same reason. Kucinich, Ron Paul, Gravel, and Edwards, among others, all have been unfairly treated by the media and so have we, by virtue of our not getting a chance to hear what a candidate says unless that candidate says what the media wants him or her to say.

I think Clinton should sue the MSM for illegal electioneering, primarily the non-stop dismissal of the viability of her campaign, which very well could have caused voters to stay home. This is as bad as broadcasting election results before polls close.

It's true. All of the hateful insults will need to stop, and the Obamabots are going to have to start courting. I personally think it's too late. It's definitely too late for me, nobody can make me change my mind now.

atheist May 16th, 2008 1:59 pm
"In fact, I've pledged my vote to Cynthia McKinney."

atheist May 16th, 2008 2:07 pm
"Once again I am reminded that Obama and his supporters need to GAIN the votes of the Clinton supporters. Offending us by calling us racist is not going to win us over, I guarantee you."

Hmmm.

How's that Caboose thing working for you? Well the Caboose was dropped from the Railroads over 20 years ago, and there mindsets in WVA is the Caboose Rusting away on a siding or in a Museum. Look at the people in WVA that were interviewed. There the same people who were scared and feared that John Kerry would make laws that Men would Marry Men and Women would marry Women. The sad part and the Victims fall on West Virginians, many who are very poor and really are bitter and turned to there Churches and Guns for comfort. I have traveled much of American by Amtrak over the years and have spend many hours with folks from different parts of America and it is sad they get so misled.

M3Man May 17th, 2008 1:08 pm
M3Man May 17th, 2008 1:08 pm
"Ohio, Penn, and WVa, and some Latinos, like Texas and California, that Obama was unacceptable."

Would you accept the suggestion that Hillary was preferred here rather than Obama was unacceptable? These are not liberal/leftist states so its no real surprise he didn't do well or that she would be preferred. That dosen't mean that he can't win in these states this fall. The Obama campaign and his supporters would be well advised to be a little less snide in their victory though.

This is a popular refrain on the blogs right now, but it won't fly. "they're trying to do the same with Wright, Ayers and the so called bittergate."

These are all legitimate questions that he hasn't answered yet. "they" may use them, but only if he doesn't answer them. And if he doesn't, he can't win.

aali May 17th, 2008 1:37 pm

Of course when 92% of blacks vote for Obama its a vote along racial lines. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Think of all the years Irishmen voted along ethnic lines to gain equality. this is really no different when you think about it.

I just don't think all this stuff is that important as far as Obama is concerned. He won't lose this election because of white racism. That I'm sure of.

Heck....I want to vote for the guy, but he has to clear these things up first. I can't vote for a slogan.

A difficult issue to tackle, that tends to put a lot of people on edge. As an outsider / immigrant, i have slowly absorbed this nation's experience with race. There are many honest, well-meaning people here, in all skin colors and i think they are the majority. But there are still major problems of racism and the media is pathetic with regards to this issue. i agree with the article regarding all that is never probed. There might be things in here i do not entirely agree with too. but reading the comments, i am struck by something that is often repeated. that if about 90% of blacks are casting a vote for Obama that is "racist". I do believe this is not so. For a variety of reasons and for the historic proportions of such a vote, it cannot be considered racist by any measure. Blacks have been voting for white democratic candidates all these years. They obviously do not have aversion to this. But many people not voting for Obama as polls revealed recently, said they would not vote for an African American..period. The TV has shown so many people saying this, i've read newspaper accounts.. i have met such people even in the Ivy league college i attended where racist graffiti used to appear and depress the hell out of me. But having lived here for close to thirty years now, I know things over all have begun to change for the better and the new generation here really is making a turn for the better.

Let's go back to the original point of this article...that Obama does very well in some states that are overwhelmingly white, and poorly in others. Yet the media decides he has trouble with "blue collar workers". They refuse to use their great powers of analysis to explain why he can do so well with white blue collar voters in Indiana, Iowa, Washington, Arizona and a dozen other states demographically similar to WVA. They make it look like he has a problem with all white, blue collar voters, which is a bald faced lie, and I fear, not an innocent one.

They refuse to discuss race, except in the same ways that Rush Limbaugh does...the ways that reflect negatively on Obama. They repeat, on a Rev Wright type loop, that he can't get low income whites to vote for him, when that is not even true. But where is the racial analysis of the fact that Hillary's only big wins are in places where she was able to convince some whites, like Ohio, Penn, and WVa, and some Latinos, like Texas and California, that Obama was unacceptable. Her entire campaign in my home state of Texas focused on Hispanics, expoiting the Black-Brown divide. America's first Black president spent a day in Dallas, did 3 events, all in Hispanic strongholds. Hillary spent all her time on the Mexico border and hardly visited Dallas, the largest media market. It was horribly cynical, and rarely mentioned on TV. Imagine, for a moment, that Obama had campaigned in only Black neighborhoods.(In fact, he was criticized for not spending much time in Philadelphia's inner city)

While the article points out the Southern-Appalacian connection between the states where she got 70% of white votes, this was not to claim all whites there are racists. The main question of the article is why is the vote not discussed this way. Except on Comedy Central.

Hillary was supposed to swamp Obama in Indiana, which is just a blue collar as Ohio and Pennsylvania. The vote there came at the end of the week that began with Rev Wright's world tour. The last polls had him losing by 6 to 12 points. He lost by less than 1%!. He was only 4 points behind before they counted a single vote from Gary! If you explain it by saying Indiana is next to Illinois, then you have to conclude that whites who know Obama best know the Wright stuff is an unfair smear. There is much good racial news in the Indiana vote, but did you ever hear a voice on TV point this out? 6 minutes after Hillary's hopes crashed and died there, all the media focus was on his "problem" coming up in WVa. The night of her big win there, there was tons of talk about his "problem". Hardly anyone mentioned how all she picked up was 12 delegates, so the win was meaningless, except for the meaning the media gave it, by saying, falsely, that it proved he can't get whites to vote for him

If Obama becomes president, it will be because he has 5 months left to tell all of America who he really is, and can fight off the stereotypes that the Repugs will try to foist on him. They made Kerry into a flip flopping liar who cheated to get his medals, and the media played along. This year, they're trying to do the same with Wright, Ayers and the so called bittergate.

Blacks like me, born into segregation, were always taught "you have to be twice as good to get half as far." So when we see a Black man who can head the Harvard Law Review, which means he was the very best at the nation's top law school, and be a senator at age 40, we know he's pretty sharp. His campaign just ran rings around the Clintons...the only Democrats since Roosevelt effective enough to win the white house twice. Outsmarting McCain will be easy. Overcoming the media bias will be the real challenge.

Eric J-D May 17th, 2008 12:19 pm

Thanks for that post, it reminded me to say that in regard to WV, I would agree with these gentlemens assessments.

Didn't mean its not there, just don't agree with Singley's presentation or her regional stereotypes.

ticonderoga May 16th, 2008 6:43 pm

"That is, the media and Obama's opponents have been trying to convince whites that America is more racist than it really is so they won't vote for him."

I agree with your main point here, but this is a two edged "sword" article as I read it.

"I'm confounded and profoundly depressed. At best, the conversation is shallow and mired in looping sound bites and stereotypes, sadly revealing how little most white Americans know about their own history, the black experience, their neighbors, or themselves."

"The flaw is not with Obama the candidate, but with the people — specifically, white people."

"false assertion that he has a problem with all blue collar whites, rather than just the Southern and Southern-thinking ones. Whether they do this from ignorance or with malice makes no difference."

I read the above as speaking to all whites, not just to the title of the article folks. Maybe I'm wrong, but this one sure looks like a racist statement to me...."rather than just the Southern and Southern-thinking ones. Whether they do this from ignorance or with malice makes no difference."

"What's really interesting, though, is that, according to this survey, the most famous person in American history was Martin Luther King, Jr. Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman came in second and third, respectively."

I would suggest this is due to the history textbooks of the last 15 years rather than an indication of lessening racism per se. Unfortunately a bit of revisionist history going on. That said there is not a doubt in my mind that racism is nowhere near the problem its made out to be by people like this. Why exactly would I care if Obama is half black? His color matters little to me, his beliefs, attitudes, experience and judgment matter a heck of a lot.

I can't vote for a blank, so he has to fill in the spaces. In Singley's mind, I believe she would consider me a racist.

Araquin May 16th, 2008 7:04 pm

What do you make of Northern style racism? I do agree that racism is substituted for class a lot. But you threw a bunch of stereotypes in there don't you think?

iwarrior May 16th, 2008 11:05 pm

Pretty close!

"Rev. Wright is an obviously [respectable] man."

Then you simply haven't done your homework on this fella. Its a bit harder since Trinity scrubbed their site earlier in the year and removed a lot of information, but its out there. Its a bit more than soundbites.

OK, I'm about to expose my ignorance.....

Who is Cynthia McKinney? And what's a Troll?

Just remember I never claimed to be smart. Degrees just mean you passed tests!

Thanks for weighing in on this thread, mrwildfire. I'm glad you mentioned Joe Bageant's book too--I'm very interested in reading it.

Although I've never lived in West Virginia, I stayed in a very poor area in Tucker County back in the summer of 1986. Some pretty severe flooding had occurred in this area in 1985, and initially I thought I was going to go down to help do some reconstruction of flood damaged homes. Instead, we wound up working on the "houses" of some very poor people living in the hills above the valley.

I say "houses" because these were really unfinished homes--no insulation, no siding, nothing. You've seen housing go up and the base of the house with the Tyvek covering still exposed, right? That's what these houses were.

I bring this up because I witnessed some of the racism you mention firsthand. Among some of our work crew there were a number of African Americans, and even after a solid week of going out every day to the same house and working hard alongside the people who lived there, the African Americans I knew still met with a certain kind of coldness that, by the end of the week, I did not.

Now, I should say that when we first arrived, all of us--white and black alike--encountered this. I found it totally understandable since we were a group of fairly privileged people coming down to help out people who had been hard hit by both flooding and severe and lasting poverty. We could easily have been taken for a group of "white knights" patronizingly attempting to help the less fortunate.

And there is certainly an understandable difficulty that people face when they are confronted by strangers who want to offer help that they can't provide for themselves. There's pride and shame mixed up in the experience even when you welcome the help being offered.

So I could understand the suspicion and the coldness with which we were greeted. I didn't mind it because I could imagine how difficult it must be for these folks for us to be there.

But by the end of the week, after they saw that we not only wanted to listen to them about their needs and desires for the reconstruction but were more than happy to have them take part in it, I felt like I moved somewhat from being just an outsider. There was greater ease and warmth between us. Towards the African Americans in our group, however, there was considerably less of this. It wasn't that there was open hostility, just a greater detachment shown towards them than towards us white folk.

Anyway, that's a long way of saying that I think racism is still very alive in this area. Don't get me wrong, I really appreciated the privilege I had of working alongside those folks in West Virginia. Much as I deplored what seemed like their racist response to some of my co-workers, I felt that they had been shamefully used and ignored by this country. In many ways I think their racism was a perverse way of achieving a kind of distinction they were denied in almost every other way. They could at least say to themselves, shameful as this was, "I may be poor but at least I'm not black."

Sorry for the long story, but I wanted to echo what you said about the enduring racism among poor whites in West Virginia. It's a sad fact of life there, just as sad as the deep poverty and neglect in which so many of these same people live.

Jewbacca says:

"We are simply going to have to hope he's malleable to the right influences."

An astute observation and reasonable hope. If you get Obama/Clinton/Edwards(AG), you may be assured that they will be. And those "influences" should come from the real progressives, screaming their agenda from the very moment of a liberals' win in November. Elect first, then demand.
Don't forget EITHER, and don't forget that the "demand" cannot come before the "elect".

McCain is surely a sellout "free-TRAITOR" who cannot be trusted. What choice is there but obama???

We are simply going to have to hope he's malleable to the right influences.

First of all, I gotta respond to this one because, unlike most of the rest of you, I live smack dab in the middle of West Virginia; I've been here 32 years although I have recently made some unsuccessful attempts to escape. Is racism the reason Clinton won here by a landslide? Mostly, yes. WV is 96% white. It's also dead last in percentage of hispanics, dead last in college graduation, and always near the bottom in per capita income. It has no cities over 60,000 population.
The book Deer Hunting With Jesus by Joe Bageant is an excellent explanation of the local culture (Bageant is from the western part of VA but it's the same culture). When I talk about why I want to escape the cultural environment of WV, I always cite the "contempt for education" that is a part of local culture here. They are not just ignorant--they're sort of proud of their ignorance, but also defensive and full of the kind of insecurity that hungers for a scapegoat. So they bristle at what they perceive as elitism--but unfortunately, they equate this not with wealth but with certain manners and language, etc, so they embraced Bush as one of their own because he cuts brush and mangles words and drinks beer, etc.
To those who say the author is saying that "anyone who didn't vote for Obama is racist," that's not true. It's not about any single vote. It's about why the percentage in votes in one area or demographic differs from another.
By the way, Edwards WAS on the ballot here.
I too like McKinney, but she has zero chance of winning and I see some hope in Obama. Rich M wants to know why, given his articulated policies. Some do differ from Clinton/McCain's--not nearly as much as I'd like, but there are some differences. But there is a huge, stark difference in the way they've run their campaigns. And we must acknowledge the power of the MSM: Kucinich and Gravel and Paul were marginalized out of the race BECAUSE they stood for everything we want (well, some of what we want in the case of Paul) which means they'd challenge corporate power and that is not tolerated by the media arm of the corporate/government/media Complex. It's partly the people I see supporting (and opposing) Obama that gives me hope that he's keeping some intentions hidden--it's the only way we can get a President who will govern in a progressive way. Is Obama really gonna do that IF he gets in, or am I lost in rose-colored-glasses land? Well, I acknowledge the likelihood that he'd be as disappointing as Bill Clinton was. But we KNOW without question what Hillary or McCain would do and this country and the world cannot take any more of that.

I have still yet met an Obama supporter who actually can articulate his policy positions and agrees with his policy positions. I have yet to meet an Obama supporter who has ever been able to articulate his leadership/co-sponsorship of any major legislation. I have yet to meet an Obama supporter who can justify his foreign policy positions, or is even aware of his PRO-WAR positions. I have found Obama supporters to be voting for him becuase he's not Bush, he's not Clinton and because he's black. Yet when I ask these same folks if they agree with me on universal healthcare, on withdrawing the troops, with not supporting Ronald Reagan/George Bush I foreign policies, and asking them if they support Green party positions, they say that's what they want!

tetti_tatti May 16th, 2008 1:35 pm

And blue collar America will comply, of course. They'd rather see a white piece of trash who have sent our jobs overseas (both Bush and Clinton) be sworn as President than, God forbid, a black man in the White House.

fdlstyx May 16th, 2008 2:14 pm

"Labor unions are generally supportive of the democratic candidate. Obama already has the support of several unions including the United Steelworkers. And hopefully, with John Edwards support, that will change even more. And more again once Hillary steps aside."

Obama made a speech the other day in which he gave all of the key phrases of another "free" trader that will continue to send American jobs overseas. Phrases such as "we won't build a wall around America". "the American worker can compete against anyone". etc.

Beware wolves in blacksheep clothing.

Lobo Gris

Rich Griffin,

I agree that Ms McKinney has a very strong chance of winning the presidential election, in an ideally SANE USA, but that's not the USA we have. Between her and the DP and RP candidates, so Obama, McCain, and Billary, I don't need a fraction of even a second to know what the answer would be, though would require a second or maybe two to speak the words. Cynthia McKinney, without any doubt!

And I like your perspective or view very much, and this is with respect to both Ms McKinney and Ralph Nader. Thanks for providing such reading material; it's always great to come across. YES! Both excellent people for candidates for office, and regardless of which level of office they'd run for; they being strongly fit for the whole spectrum of positions.

So when I say that she does not have a remote chance of winning the presidency, this is not to state a negative against her, for, and obviously, it is or would NOT be the slightest bit of her fault; it'd be the fault of ignorant voters. And they can't get away with the news media not covering campaigns of Ms McKinney, Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, for there are other ways of easily learning who all of the candidates are. The only people who would have an unfortunate, but nonetheless valid excuse or reason are those who are too poor to have their own PC and Internet connection, or access to the Internet, and while also living among a seriously ignorant and/or censoring population. Anyone with access to the Internet, however, now these people should KNOW who ALL of the candidates are.

So my apparent negativism in her regard in my above post is not meant in a negative way; and I'm hopefully mistaken about her not having a viable chance of being elected US President. For me, priority NO. 1 is to get the damn GWoT wars and many other serious crimes of the U.S. govt and its ruling elites STOPPED dead in their tracks. She would be the better candidate for achieving this though!

She doesn't need a refresher on LAWS as Obama clearly seems to need; actually does, if he's not actually criminal with all of his foreign policy or war-related votes as senator. She's AHEAD of him in terms of understanding reality; definitely, and clearly so.

With her as President, then we could rest, have restful sleep.

Ugh. These articles are giving me headaches. I don't even know why I tried to read this one.

I still don't see a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Clinton. I really don't. Neither of them offers the kind of positive radical change that is needed to turn this country and the world around.

I'm a white, blue-collar, Pennsylvanian male. In our Democratic primary, I wrote in Dennis Kucinich. Did I betray white people, black people, or women by doing so?

The identity politics surrounding this election just makes me wanna vote for Nader all the more. I won't see it as a wasted vote. I don't feel I fired a blank in regards to Kucinich either.

Yes there are people who want to vote for Clinton or McCain because they're white. Yes there are people who want to vote for Hilary because she's a woman. Yes there are people who want to vote for Obama because he's African American. It's all dumb. They're all voting against their best interests by supporting candidates that aren't progressive or just aren't progressive enough. It's why I shake my head at all of this gendered and racialized analysis regarding the two candidates. It would be significant to me if they were polar opposites, but I'm just not seeing it.

"I've seen some of the most fervently radical, avowedly antiracists crumple like tinfoil when they have to stare down their own deeply embedded white supremacist reality."

And what positive change ever came from making people crumple and squirm? They're already getting punished by the people at the top. Why kick them when they're already down?

If Barack Obama weren't so mild in his efforts towards "change," he would get my full support. It hurts me when people disparage him because of his race. It's brought me into some nasty confrontations with other people as of late. The bigots are out there. No doubt.

I've said before that there are things I like about Obama. He's inclusive. He's a great orator. He tries to stay above the fray and chooses to extinguish fires rather than toss gasoline onto them.

But until he states that he wants all of our troops out of everywhere, not just Iraq (no gov't contractors either), until he supports FREE universal health care (not just 'affordable'), until he really puts forth a plan to better the lives of the people in every way possible, I just can't back him all the way. He's just too soft and timid. He tries too hard to come up with proposals that all sides will agree on. He compromises too much. The powerful and corrupt aren't folks you can make deals with.

Will I vote for McCain? Hell no.

Will I vote for Obama? Hell, I want to, but if I do, I will not be w/o reservations. If he gets in, I won't cry over it. It just means that all of us are gonna have to lean on him, BIG time.

I want a non-white or woman president too. I do think it would be good for the country. But I want the right one, and Obama or Clinton aren't cutting it for me.

As far as Jewbacca's comments (I've read some of his other posts and mostly disagree), I think he's right to an extent regarding left alienating poor, working, and rural whites at times. There are lefties who will demonize them. I've gone into it ad nauseum around here. It's no better than how the right characterizes blacks and hispanics and just shoots the movement in the foot.

However, was Obama guilty of doing just that? I don't think so. I think he was just trying to understand that segment of the population. He's far from being an elitist. Not that some liberals aren't that way, but he's not one of them imo.

What's my point? I dunno. I just think we all have a lot of work to do regardless of who gets elected. McCain's gonna be bad every which way you look, but Clinton and Obama are not saviours.

It's like I'm looking into a crystal ball and seeing three roads. One certainly leads to ruin, the other two merge into one road that leads us to a place that doesn't look much different from where we are now. There's a fourth road, one that is lonely and not too busy, but they keep telling us that it isn't viable despite it leading us to a place where there's no war, and everyone has an education, a job, health care, food to eat, and clean air and water to drink and breathe.

Hillary says she is for the common people at least. McCain is for the United Corporation of America and Barrack doesn't have the vision towards the true nuts and bolts of a society, although, he is excellent with ideas of unison and inclusion in some sense.

This is how I rank them. Hillary 1, Obama close 2nd choice, McCain more distant 3rd but as far as any of them go, they are a good slate. I figure McCain would flip back to the maverick once he gets the lock on the office. I think Bush will get kicked to the curb pretty damn quick then. Either democrat is infinitely better (and even McCain) than that lame-ass excuse that's sitting there now. He has hurt America so bad, he and a few others acting with him.

The bullying that goes on about "viability" (McKinney can't WIN so therefore how dare you vote for her; you wouldn't vote for her if she had a chance of winning) is nonsense! I vote for candidates and parties that are closest to my policy positions! I actually think the Ralph Nader's of the world make the best possible politicians - policy wonks who will burn the midnight oil trying to make things better for the rest of us. I'm voting for the Green party platform this year; I have voted for Nader the past 2 presidential elections.

Fine article, but wherein Singley mentions AIDS and with respect to Rev. Wright apparently believing and saying that this disease and crisis are another rotten fruit of govt activity, particularly the hidden (sort of, and much in surely many cases) ruling elites; well, I understand that many, if not most, black Americans believe like many, if not most, white Americans do and which is that AIDS began with some Africans having sexual relations with monkeys or apes. Rev. Wright's not saying anything pleasing to us, but it sure beats Westerners telling me that Africans were having sexual intercourse with monkeys or apes; although this is personal preference, for I don't know what the real origin of the disease is.

But we have plenty of PROOF of govt activities like R&D (research & development) for and use of biological weapons and this includes germ warfare, among other biologically-based weapons of govts; and I recently learned that contrary to what many people have claimed, The People of the Lie ones, it is not the Nazis who invented biological means of killing and disabling others.

Rev. Wright is an obviously [respectable] man.

But the article is good; it presents a good statement and viewpoint of a fellow citizen who's experientially had a very different life than white citizens have had, although he seems to have left the worst behind in the 1960s when leaving WVa.

He made a good reference to the song by Bob Dylan too. It's appreciated; it would be even if it wasn't also funny.

=============================================

" Jewbacca May 16th, 2008 1:04 pm

As long as you lefties continue to dehumanize working class and rural whites with comments like "they are bitter and their bitterness makes them latch onto etc etc etc…" you will never get their respect or support. ..."

WHAT's wrong with being BITTER when it's justified to be BITTER? I don't have a problem with it, and am very BITTER myself; because of all the damn fucking racketeering schmucks in the hi-tech industry who committed economic [treason] (yes, there's such a thing alright) and while pretending to be citizens of the same country, f.e. I'm also bitter because govts of the West criminally, since it's unethically, impose laws against marijuana, whether it be cultivation, sales, transport, carrying (personal quantities) and toking; because it's a very healthy substance, both physically and psychologically, being a NATURAL medicinal plant, for another example.

Is that justified bitterness? Better believe it, but if not, then believe this: Your words are just more of The People of The LIE bs. Knowing and experientially so gives us [real] knowledge, instead of following whatever SCHMUCK elites say as if it's always gospel truth, i.e., BLINDLY.

To be bitter is justifiable; to be blind, ethically, politically, economically, sum it all up into socially, is BAD, BAD, BAD, to be remedied and in EMERGENCY fashion.

When we are bitter, then it is far better to realise it and then live it as well as we possibly can, rather than to DENY IT and continue living in our unblessed, cursed IGNORANCE; IMHO. Once we realise that we're bitter, then we only have a little more work to do and which is to discern whether the bitterness is justified or not; and if it isn't, then remedy the situation or problem. It's also good to apply remedy when bitterness is justified, but many of us evidently are rendered beyond material capabilities needed to make the necessary corrections; therefore, the bitterness persists, again justifiably.

And I wasn't so stupid when I was a blue-collar worker for Obama saying that blue-collars are bitter to have been fanatically, ignorantly, ... perceived as if it's offencive; for there's NOTHING offencive about it at all.

Maybe these idiot blue-collars would prefer the word 'angry', instead of 'bitter', but if that's the case, then the remedy is trivially simple; they're very synonymous (oops, big word for I suppose such blue-collars), meaning very much the same thing. They would mean the same thing in the context in which Obama used 'bitter'.

Am I angry? DAMN FUCKING RIGHT I AM! I know this first-hand like no others do (about myself, of course being meant).

Anger is GOOD, while what's bad is the cause, when the anger is justified, that is. Anger makes me feel as if I'm still ALIVE, and that's a welcome awareness. Feeling like I'm some sort of walking dead is not welcome.

(Walking dead, instead of zombie, given that it's been discovered that there are real "zombies" and that it's all about enslaving people by drugging them to make them appear dead, apparently also to medical examiners, so that the victims are then buried and retrieved a little (very little) later by the criminal enslavers. The latter dig up the casket and bring the victim back to awareness and the ability to work as a slave under AWFUL conditions.

I came across a documentary on this a little over a month ago and on a tv station that plays in Quebec, either ZTele airing 'Forces Obscures', Obscure Forces in Eng., or else on Canal D.

TV's not always bad; it is sometimes [educational].)

Anyway, blue-collar whites need to realise that Obama is not a threat to their needs, and that he wasn't being insulting or condescending in using the word 'bitter' as he did. He spoke of REALITY, imo; and my 'mo' is based on personal experience, more than enough of it.

So they and their defenders need to WAKE UP and get with being REAL, hence reality-based, because to perceive offence when there is NONE is BAD to have for habit.

Ask me if I'm bitter and I'll chuckle and say, 'DAMN RIGHT!' or else and simply 'YES, I AM!'. Ask me then if I feel guilty, as if I'm sinful because I'm bitter and don't stand too close, for spit's possibly coming. Might be more than spit, but would need to get fit again, first.

atheist wrote:

Eric, what ???? The article is FULL of anti-white racist statements, claims that people aren't voting for Obama simply because he's black. How can you not see them ?

Okay, I'm going to answer you just once and only once because you're engaging in some behavior that makes me think you're a troll (apologies if you aren't, but I'll show you why you appear to be one in a moment).

You've just engaged in classic shifting of the argument. Previously you wrote:

Singley's "logic" is racist. She's basically saying that if you didn't vote for Obama, it's because you didn't want to vote for a black person

The implicit claim being made here is that Singley has reduced all non-votes for Obama to a single cause: racism.

Now you write:

The article is FULL of anti-white racist statements, claims that people aren't voting for Obama simply because he's black.

This is a very different claim altogether. It is true that Singley is saying that some people (as you say) aren't voting for Obama on the basis of race, but that is NOT what you said or suggested she was saying earlier. You've shifted ground, and that's what makes me think you're a troll.

What's more, you've shifted ground to a place where you have very limited options. Given your second statement (i.e. Singley is claiming that there are people who "aren't voitng for Obama simply because he's black") you now have to:

1) disclaim your earlier statement (that she was saying that everyone who doesn't vote for Obama does so for racial reasons) as either a mistatement or a misrepresentation, since now you are only saying that she claims that SOME people aren't voting for him for that reason.

or

2) deny that ANY whites (even those 2 in 10 in West Virginia who admitted that race WAS a factor) are motivated by racism if they don't vote for Obama.

This sort of ground-shifting is classic troll behavior, so if you want to show us that you aren't a troll, you've got to come to grips with the serious discrepancy between your first claim and your most recent one. Which claim are you making?

"Was the world any better off when that scumbag Democrat Clinton was diddling his White House intern instead of hunting down Osama bin Laden before he could attack us?"

Yes, it was.

Bernestine, I understand your pain. But you know as well as I do, that the ones at the bottom always look for someone to despise to make them feel better about themselves.

In America, it's working class (and sub-working class particularly) whites and Hispanics who hate blacks without really knowing why, in Europe (where I live), it's the working class whites who are the most xenophobic and who hate all immigrants, no matter their color of skin, mind you!!! Most immigrants in Europe are actually white as well, but the attitudes towards them are exactly the same as you find in Southern-style racism in America.

So instead of fighting the real(!!) culprits who are the root of the circumstances they are in, i.e. Big Money - which would necessitate some minor brain activities on the part of the whites - working class whites and all those who feel that they were left behind thrive on simply disliking "the other", since that needs no brain activity. It's not that they wouldn't have brains enough to know better: On both sides of the Atlantic, there used to exist a very political working class which was definitely not racist, on the contrary. You don't need a college education to tell right from wrong, after all.

This intelligent and activist working class got wiped out nearly completely in America, in Europe it only survived in some pockets, although there might be a comeback of the politically active and savvy working class, due to the effects of globalisation.

I'd still maintain that it is all a matter of class. Racism in places like WVA or MS distracts the disadvantaged whites from who the real enemy is. Which is why nobody is REALLY interested in getting rid of racism, although they claim they do. It serves as a welcome distraction of the bottom segment of society, welcome for those in power, since racists have their scapegoats for everything they dislike in life and won't look any further. United, they'd all be so strong. But some other people wouldn't like them to be united, would they?

So better make sure that poor whites have shitty schools, watch the lousiest TV on earth and thus continue to be uneducated racists, that will keep them in their place and they won't ask the much weightier questions.

ticonderoga said "So, you voted for Bush and the Republicans twice? Do you think the country, and the world, is in better shape now than it was before they took over? Hard to imagine anyone answering "yes" to that question."

Actually, they don't answer the question at all. The dodge is called "framing the argument." In this case by coming back with something like "Was the world any better off when that scumbag Democrat Clinton was diddling his White House intern instead of hunting down Osama bin Laden before he could attack us. I guess you'd rather offer therapy to our enemies like the tax-and-spend dumbocrats running for office now. I'll take a good strong president that cares about family values and does what he has to to protect America any day."

Any response other than "you didn't answer my question" buys into the reframed argument.

I think that there's quite a few people here who are either not reading the author's article quite right, or else they're being unfair to her. As far as I can tell, her main point seems to be that the media pundits and politicians have been doing their best to make blue-collar, white Americans think Obama can't win because he's black. That is, the media and Obama's opponents have been trying to convince whites that America is more racist than it really is so they won't vote for him.

The title of the piece says it all: Blue Collar Workers and Media Pundits: Same Pawn, Same Game. The media are the players and blue collar workers are the pawns, with checkmate for the media being to convince blue collar workers not to vote for Obama because he can't win because not enough white people will vote for him because he's black, so you better vote for Hillary.

Does this mean that there's no other reason to vote for someone besides Obama other than racism? Of course not. You can vote for Cynthia McKinney, for example, because her stated ideas are much more progressive than Obama's are - but she's got less of a chance of winning than Kucinich did. You can vote for Hillary because. . . well . . . I'm not sure why anyone would want to vote for her, but you could. You can vote for McCain because he thinks staying in Iraq for a hundred years is an option.

But the bottom line is that the media, as the title of this article indicates, wants blue collar whites to think that they should vote for Hillary because Obama can't win because he's black. And, since I know that the media is my enemy, I'm going to do the opposite of what they tell me to do.

Eric, what ???? The article is FULL of anti-white racist statements, claims that people aren't voting for Obama simply because he's black. How can you not see them ? For me to point them all out to you, I'd have to repeat the full article here ! She is NOT talking only about West Virginia, she is talking about any state in which Obama did not receive a particular percentage of white votes.

And yet I note (again) the complete and total absense of any claims of racism of all of the black people who refused to vote for Clinton. They are surely racist and as deserving of Singley's vitriol, but because she's black she'll never criticize them.

Regarding your questions, I am a person who has ALWAYS voted Democratic, but this year if Obama is the nominee I will indeed vote for McKinney. I know plenty of Clinton supporters who plan to sit at home on general election night. If you don't believe now, I think you will when the election results roll in.

atheist,

Once again I think you are misrepresenting Singley's article. You've selected this sentence

"When are you going to start talking about the white folks' problem with Obama — which is also your problem with accurately analyzing his candidacy: r-a-c-i-s-m?"

as support for your point that Singley has made some generalizing claim that all whites who don't vote for Obama do so because they are racists, but nowhere does Singley say that.

The article is about the analysis of the West Virginia democratic primary and the aversion of media pundits to the issue of racism as a possible factor in it. Yet you continue to misconstrue the article as making universalizing claims that it never in fact makes.

You folks (atheist, etc.) seem to be missing some crucial points in all this. Following HRC's blowout in West Virginia, all the pundits recycled the same story, namely that no Democrat has won the presidency without winning West Virginia since somewhething like 1916 or so. This bit of doom-and-gloom from the MSM was used to ask questions about Obama's "problems" in West Virginia, but never about whether or not there might be some particular oddities about the West Virginia electorate.

The point I'm trying to make is that attention was placed on West Virginia as somehow crucial to any Democrat's hope of winning the presidency, but then immediately shifted away from teh state and its electorate and onto the candidate and his "problems" precisely in order to not have to raise the specter of racism. The narrative thus becomes all about Obama's weaknesses (which somehow West Virginia voters are apparently more able to see than the rest of the U.S. electorate) depite the fact that 20% of West Virginia democrats felt comfortable enough admitting that race was a factor in their decision and 40%+ of these same voters said they would not vote for him if he was the DP nominee.

I'll ask you again:

1) are they considering voting outside the DP because they think McCain is closer to their own political positions? (if so, they perceive HRC as closer to McCain than Obama is)

or

2) do you think these Hillary supporters are going to go outside their party to vote for McKinney? (if so, then I have some lovely swamp land I'd like to sell you) ;)

"So I think she should cut everyone a bit of slack before crying racism because people don't vote for the candidate of her choice."

Amen, Thomas !

Priestess, here is one of Singley's comments: "When are you going to start talking about the white folks' problem with Obama — which is also your problem with accurately analyzing his candidacy: r-a-c-i-s-m?"

In other words, whites who don't vote for Obama have a "problem" with him, and the problem is racism. How racist is that ? I didn't vote for Obama, therefore I'm a racist ?

Race will be a issue in the future even if Obama gets the presidency. Creating a "internal enemy" is widely used strategy, which has proven to be very effective in the past. Republicans are using the blacks together with immigrants in this regard, directly or indirectly blaming them for the hardships of "hard working withte Americans". This happens with full cooperation of the propaganda machine that is the mainstream media...

"Every story about Obama's "problem" with white voters reinforces the false assertion that he has a problem with all blue collar whites, rather than just the Southern and Southern-thinking ones."

Man, if we could just get rid of those Southerners! Everybody knows they are all racist.

I am growing tired of the stereotyping and profiling by the same group of people that are always complaining about the same thing.

Saying that about the South and Southerners is annoying, not true and offensive.

It never seems to occur to these knotheads that people may have legitimate questions about Obama?
Yes TrudyS May 16th, 2008 3:46 pm, there are racists that won't vote for Obama because he is half black, but not voting for him doesn't make most people racists.

"This lack of sophistication or studied
ignorance " is a good explanation of people that cry racism the moment other people don't do or vote the way they think they should.

Using her logic I'd say the problem is black people that are obviously casting racist votes. Over 90%? Makes about as much sense as her conclusion.

A lot of Ms. Bernestine Singley's phrasing and points seem to me to be very strident Rereading her article she certainly doesn't seem to me to be exhibiting non-racist sentiments.

And as someone said above, perhaps she protests to much.

I still don't know about Obama, but if Ms. Singley and others think Senator Obama has answered the questions about his judgment concerning Trinity, Wright, Ayers, etc, you are too easily satisfied.

He's doing well, but he's still got a long way to go. The very fact that Senator Obama is about to wrap up the nomination gives the lie to a lot of these talking points as far as I can see. Think about it for a minute. Drop back 20 years and tell me this would be happening.

She points out "No intelligent Democrat thinks Obama believes the Government started AIDS, but more than half the voters in WVA think he shares Rev Wright's beliefs."

No one of any intelligence believes the Aids statement of Wright, I'm sure Obama does not. That has nothing to do with the second part of her sentence. They may think that he shares Wrights values or some of his beliefs. I have not seen him address BLO yet in any way nor define other questions about his judgment. These are two distinctly different things and when I see this kind of flawed writing I hold the entire article as suspect.

So I think she should cut everyone a bit of slack before crying racism because people don't vote for the candidate of her choice.

Maybe she's been doing "race" for so long she can't see other points of view, but coming out of the 60's South I can't blame her that much either.

And no one needs cover to vote for the candidate of their choice.

All that hat said, I believe she does have a valid point about some pundits, analysis's and Talk DJ's.

Very good point, jareilly:

"So, you voted for Bush and the Republicans twice? Do you think the country, and the world, is in better shape now than it was before they took over?"

Hard to imagine anyone answering "yes" to that question.

Since the Wright thing and HRC's cynical innuendo, there has been a lot of chatter about to what extent race explains the WVA vote. Singley says it's the WVA voters themselves, simultaneously egged on by reactionary talk radio and hoodwinked by reactionary politics that oppose their basic interests, loot their local economies and send their kids off to die by the truckload and historically unable to shake off the "cracker" mentality. She's right of course. Many of these people are simply refractory to facts and reason and we should forget about them. Willful ignorance is their default mode. The rest however have common interests with the rest of us, like a functional economy, a functional and universal healthcare system, and a more peaceful foreign policy. What's missing is established political figures, media and movements willing to talk to these people about our common interests in something other than the specious terms now used by mainstream politics and media. That is going to mean acknowledging hard truths as Singley says. It's also going to mean asking hard questions. For once somebody has to start challenging the average white folks of WVA, IN, Kansas and all these other places where majorities keep supporting corrupt clowns, thugs and fanatics who rob their pockets, loot their Main Streets and kill their kids in overseas imperial adventures. Somebody has to get off the defensive, stopy making apologies for ignorance and fear and start asking, "Well, you've been voting for the guys with the God talk and the tough talk and prayer breakfasts and the flag pins - are you happy with the results? Has your life improved? Has any of this availed you anything worth having?". Of course that kind of tough approach will spook some people. And the pack of slathering jackals and oily parasites that calls itself the Republican Party will launch their all-out counter attack. Before it's over they will have spent millions digging in Obama's personal dirt and making up shit when they can't find enough real stuff.

Guess what? They are doing that anyway! The Dems and the liberals and progressives who vote for them have nothing to lose by fighting back..

Oh well...I can still dream...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-02-03-most-famous-americans_N.htm

This link takes you to an article about an article originally published in Scientific American that was about a survey about who the most famous Americans are. The survey was given to 2,000 high school students and 2,000 adults and the results, surprisingly enough, were almost identical in both groups.

What's really interesting, though, is that, according to this survey, the most famous person in American history was Martin Luther King, Jr. Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman came in second and third, respectively.

Seems to me that this is a pretty clear indication that white Americans aren't quite so prejudiced as the political pundits would like us to believe (the demographics of the survey, according to the Scientific American article, which I've read, followed very closely the population demographics in America, so a lot more white people than black people took the survey).

One thing that the linked article failed to mention, though, was that the people given the survey were told to choose the most famous Americans since Columbus, EXCEPT for Presidents and First Ladies. But still, with Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman coming out on top, this survey really does indicate that whites aren't as prejudiced as "they" want us to think.

Lack of knowledge about AMerican History is the key. Not once during the remarkable Indiana primary did anyone mention that Indiana was probably the most racist non-southern state with-get this- 2200 chapters of the Women's Auxiliary of the KKK. The Christian Knights of the KKK as they were known. Indiana had the most members of the KKK in the midwest. And Obama would have won except for the dittoheads that voted HRC. That is the kind of thing that needs to be talked about.

Thank you Bernestine, you hit the nail on the head as they say. The proof of this is in the wildly varied responses to your article. The white racists will find any excuse to avoid voting for a black candidate while denying their racism with passionate objection, think Shakespeare's 'me think thou dost protest too much'.

The ones that really gall me are those that make their nasty comments and end with 'I'm voting for Cynthia McKinney" (so there) what a cop out!

They know full well that Cynthia doesn't stand a chance of winning or even counting, I'm willing to bet that these same McKinney supporters would find some lame excuse not to vote for her if she indeed showed any chance of actually winning. Until we white people own up to our racism overt or subliminal we can never have the needed discussions to end the racism or classism in this country.

The politician's will continue to use both as pawns in their game.

tetti_tatti,

I think your wording was a bit offensive, but I basically agree with your point. The corporate media is giving cover to working class whites to vote against Obama even if those voters believe his policies are more attractive than McCain's. They can tell themselves that they do not feel comfortable voting for him because it is a "working class white thing" rather than it is a "racist thing."

obama could have spent 20 million in west virginia and still lost by 30-40 %...they will not vote for a WOMAN OR A BLACK MALE...if john edwards was on the ballot in west virginia he may have won the primary.....7% voted for him go figure

atheist,

In the case of white voters voting in a democratic primary in West Virginia, it is very much about race. Presumably these are white folks who vote for the Dems (since they are voting in a Democratic primary), but they overwhelming went for Clinton and 2 in 10 of them admitted that race was a factor in their decision. Sure, it could be that the majority of those casting their voters saw HRC as a more experienced candidate, with better policy positions and so on. But why then did so many of them say that if HRC wasn't the Democratic candidate they would vote elsewhere?

Do you think these white, West Virginian Hillary supporters are actually thinking about voting outside the Democratic party because they find McCain's policies to better reflect their views? That might be so, but if that's the reason it sure doesn't speak well of their perception of Clinton (who, following this logic, they must perceive as closer to McCain than Obama is).

Or do you think they are going to vote outside the DP and vote for McKinney? (I find this highly unlikely)

So I don't understand why you seem bent on denying the real possibility of race as a factor here.

You seem to think Singley is focused on all white peoples' voting behavior. I think that's not an accurate reading of the article, which seems much more focused on the voting behavior of people (whites) in largely white poorer states like West Virginia.

The issue that Singley is grappling with is not, "are all Hillary supporters racist?" but rather "why, in an overwhelmingly poor white state like West Virginia are so many of those who voted (in substantial numbers) for Hillary, seriously considering voting outside the Democratic party if Obama is the nominee?"

Blue collar America is not telling the media they won't vote for Obama, it's the media that's telling blue collar America: are you guys insane, he's a nigger. Don't vote for niggers.

So true tetti. The media seed has been planted. I hope though you are proven wrong on the second half of your post. Labor unions are generally supportive of the democratic candidate. Obama already has the support of several unions including the United Steelworkers. And hopefully, with John Edwards support, that will change even more. And more again once Hillary steps aside.

@ JaneM

I too would like to see more talk about this. And by that I mean real discussions between real people. Not media drive-by's and nasty name calling. While I don't see much of that here, I do see it in my life. People are talking about these issues and I think that's a very good sign.

@ atheist

I don't see that Singley is saying what you claim at all. Please show me where she says that, because I just don't see it.

Once again I am reminded that Obama and his supporters need to GAIN the votes of the Clinton supporters. Offending us by calling us racist is not going to win us over, I guarantee you.

With a little luck, Obama will persuade Mrs. Clinton to join him as VP, persuade Edwards to sign on for Attorney General, and the three of them will run sort of like JFK, Johnson and RKF all at once. With a little more luck, they will win by a landslide, pull liberals into Congress with them on coattails and leave the racists and the Rush bubbas wondering how "their" world of bigotry got turned upside down on a single (election day) evening.

Then maybe Obama, Clinton, Edwards and the new Congress will put on their flag pins (probably prompting conservatives to take theirs off---which would be okay, considering what Republicans have been wearing those pins to promote and signify.)

Singley's "logic" is racist. She's basically saying that if you didn't vote for Obama, it's because you didn't want to vote for a black person. And yet she doesn't accuse blacks for being racist because they didn't vote for white Clinton.

IT'S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT RACE, PEOPLE !

I did not, and will not, vote for Obama, but it has nothing to do with him being half black. In fact, I've pledged my vote to Cynthia McKinney. So feed on that, white-haters.

I find this very interesting and helpful. I wish more people would take about it honestly. I was listening to a talk show recently in the Boston area where a woman called in and said that Barack Obama had donated heavily to the Care organization and said it was a front for a muslim terrorist organization! The worst part of the exchange is that the white, female host said absolutely nothing! I was not able to call in, but I sent an email objecting to the program, but of course, heard nothing more about it (and I don't ever listen to that show anymore, either).

Blue collar America is not telling the media they won't vote for Obama, it's the media that's telling blue collar America: are you guys insane, he's a nigger. Don't vote for niggers.

And blue collar America will comply, of course. They'd rather see a white piece of trash who deserted Vietnam (both Bush and Clinton), who have sent our jobs overseas (both Bush and Clinton) and who started illegal wars against innocent nations (both Bush and Clinton) be sworn as President than, God forbid, a black man in the White House.

Rich, its precisely Obama's LACK of credentials that makes him so attractive! Credentials these days means more time in our political system, which tends to mean more time screwing this country over. I can't speak for all of those policy issues, but maybe he supports israel because he thinks they are facing arab aggression and have the right to defend themselves!

"Princess", shut up. YOU are the troll, I am engaging in real discussion. No one is impressed with the books you claim to read either.

I think this is an excellent article. I'd like to read more on Common Dreams from Bernestine Singley.

She said: "But CNN, MSNBC and the rest should know better. If they act no better than Fox, you think maybe, just maybe, they share the same agenda?"

To which I respond: You bet I think they share the same agenda. It's pro-business (esp the business of war), pro-Israel (see business of war) but mostly it's about their own stature as part of an elite few that set the tone and set the boundaries for the so-called debate. I've been simultaneously reading Edward Bernays' Propaganda and Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point. A very interesting combo. Highly recommended.

(As to the first post: Please don't feed the trolls.)

He doesn't deserve anybody's support, regardless of race. It's been the blindness of his supporters, who never answer the questions I ask about him: what has he done that makes him qualified to be President, esp. as a U.S. Senator? Which policies can you point to with great pride that he will be sure to enact as President? What are his great passions? How many american lives is he willing to sacrifice in Afghanistan, Pakistan, perhaps Iran, perhaps elsewhere? How will he repay his Wall Street supporters? Explain in detail how he will help with soaring grocery and gas prices? How do you justify his support and admiration for the foreign policies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush I? Why does he continue to support the Israeli government's shameful occupation of Palestine? What parts of the imperial empire building will he dismantle, if any?

I will be voting for Cynthia McKinney, because I agree 100% with the Greeen platform; and as a plus, I get to vote for a courageous black person, and a woman candidate. Her lack of viability is YOUR fault, not mine.

As long as you lefties continue to dehumanize working class and rural whites with comments like "they are bitter and their bitterness makes them latch onto etc etc etc..." you will never get their respect or support.

People are not focusing on issues like illegal immigration and guns because we are bitter. These issues are the reason we are bitter IN THE FIRST PLACE! Illegal immigration is destroying our economy, globalism, nafta, and other issues are destroying our economy. Obama NEEDS to deal with these issues directly, or he'll never get white support.