Note the way The Associated Press lumped us in with Mississippi:
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Barack Obama coasted to victory in Mississippi’s Democratic primary Tuesday, latest in a string of racially polarized presidential contests across the Deep South and a final tune-up before next month’s high-stakes race with Hillary Rodham Clinton in Pennsylvania.
Obama was winning roughly 90 percent of the black vote but only about one-quarter of the white vote, extending a pattern that carried him to victory in earlier primaries in South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana.
His triumph seemed unlikely to shorten a Democratic marathon expected to last at least six more weeks — and possibly far longer — while Republicans and their nominee-in-waiting, Sen. John McCain, turn their attention to the fall campaign….
Now I don’t know what happened in Mississippi, because I wasn’t there. But I was in South Carolina, and there was nothing "racially polarized" about the vote here. I don’t care whether every single black person in the state voted for Obama and not one white person did. There was nothing about that campaign that put a wedge between the races, beyond some flap over comments made by Bill and Hillary — and as racially charged remarks go, those seemed a dud to me.
To the contrary, nothing Barack Obama said or did appealed to racial resentments or prejudices or perceptions. His campaign, and his victory — was remarkable for the very lack of such tensions. That’s what his supporters were celebrating on the night of his victory.
You want to see a racially polarized election? Look at the Memphis mayoral race I wrote about several months ago. Or for a non-electoral example, look at the way this whole Highway Patrol issue plays out, with race a consideration in every step of the conversation.
Lord knows there are plenty of problems in South Carolina relating to race. But the Democratic primary here in January was not an example of that.
Anyway, I was glad to see the AP drop that language in later versions of the story.
Related Posts
Brad,
If the black people voted for the black guy, and the white people voted for the white woman and the white man, the vote was raciallly polarized.
It doesn’t matter what the candidates said. Who preached what is irrelevant. The vote broke down by race, so it was racially polirized.
This is the real world, not some dream Unparty place where how a person acts makes the whole world colorblind.
Just look at the Highway Patrol stuff of late and the Confederate flag. The vote WAS racially polarized.
As much as it pains me I have to agree with Weldon on this one. If the votes broke down along racial lines then it was, by definition, racially polarized.
I think it refers to more of the “presidential contests” than the actual breakdown of the votes. What Brad is referring to is the lack of people in the contest using race to pit one set of people against another. If that happened in Mississippi, then whatever, but here not so much.
We don’t know how people voted. The AP enjoys throwing out data as if it is statistically accurate. Asking a few people how they voted and then reporting the results of those who participated should not be looked upon as a representative sample.
Actually, Marsh, it is — as long as the sampling is properly done.
To me, “polarizing” refers to serious political division, and when you use it in a racial context it refers to something particularly nasty and unreconcilable. In a political sense, a statistical anomaly does not represent polarization. We’re talking politics here, not math or physics.
If Democrats and Republicans merely voted as Democrats and Republicans, and did so without bitterness or rancor, we would not say this is a polarized country. But it is, unfortunately. And in the S.C. primary, black and white voters were not polarized in that political sense. In fact, the folks who voted for Obama tend not to be polarized in partisan terms, either. The angriest Democrats tend to vote for Hillary.
As I said, the recent Memphis election was racially polarized. I showed you the video of Mayor Herenton’s extremely petulant “victory” speech. It was, as long as we’re talking “polar,” the precise opposite of the one that Obama gave in that regard.
It’s important to note one of the reasons why black voters turned out in such numbers to back Obama. Months earlier, many had been planning to vote (if at all) for Hillary, and a reason one often heard was that they didn’t believe whites would vote for Obama, so why vote for a guy who had no chance> Many folks changed their minds after Iowa, because they had become convinced that Obama was viable because he was NOT racially polarizing, and whites would vote for him.
The angriest Democrats tend to vote for Hillary.
-Brad
Damn it Brad, those are fighting words! You’ve crossed the line now. I’m just not going to take this anymore. I’ll meet you any time, any place and we’ll settle this like men. The audacity of accusing Hillary voters like me of being angry.
Hopefully everyone appreciates sarcasm. But seriously Brad, what possible evidence do you have to support that claim? I know many Hillary voters and most are tree-hugging peaceniks. Most oppose the very violent, angry confrontation in Iraq. We don’t buy into all the fear-mongering, and yes, anger spouted on a daily basis by talk radio. Indeed, we Hillary lovers believe in diplomacy as a solution, not confrontation and war.
Don’t fall for that Obama propaganda about how he “won the white vote in Iowa”.
Iowa is about 96% white. How could anyone but whites vote for Obama or Hillary or anyone in Iowa?
Besides, Iowa doesn’t have a primary, but caucuses, with relatively low turnout of radical, mouth-foaming, socialistic Democrats, who don’t represent mainstream or majority anything.
If white votes white, and black votes black, like a positive pole attracting negatively charged particles, and a negative pole attracting positively charged particles, the vote is racially polarized. No, the rhetoric wasn’t racially polarized in South Carolina, but the results were.
Really, though, the rhetoric is meaningless, just politicians talking. But the results, and the demographics, do mean something. What they say is that the voters didn’t hear the rhetoric. They voted by race, pure and simple. Any further analysis ignores the obvious.
From The State March 15, 2008
In a sermon on the Sunday after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,
Wright suggested the United States brought on the attacks.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the
thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Wright
said. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black
South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done
overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s
chickens are coming home to roost.”
In a 2003 sermon, he said blacks should condemn the United States.
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a
three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no,
God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn
America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for
as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
He also gave a sermon in December comparing Obama to Jesus, promoting his
candidacy and criticizing his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and
a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright told a cheering
congregation. “Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called
a nigger.”
Obama told MSNBC that he would not repudiate Wright as a man, describing him
as “like an uncle” who says something that he disagrees with and must speak
out against. He also said he expects his political opponents will use video
of the sermons to attack him as the campaign goes on.
Questions about Obama’s religious beliefs have dogged him throughout his
candidacy. He’s had to fight against false Internet rumors suggesting he’s
really a Muslim intent on destroying the United States, and now his pastor’s
words uttered nearly seven years ago have become an issue.
Obama wrote on the Huffington Post that he never heard Wright say any of the
statements, but he acknowledged that they have raised legitimate questions
about the nature of his relationship with the pastor and the church. He
wrote that he joined Wright’s church nearly 20 years ago, familiar with the
pastor’s background as a former Marine and respected biblical scholar who
lectured at seminaries across the country.
“Reverend Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my
life,” he wrote. “And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our
obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor and to
seek justice at every turn.”
He said Wright’s controversial statements first came to his attention at the
beginning of his presidential campaign last year, and he condemned them.
Because of his long and deep ties to the 6,000-member congregation church,
Obama said he decided not to leave.
“With Reverend Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev.
Otis Moss III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with
a church that has done so much good,” he wrote.
Also Friday, the United Church of Christ issued a 1,400-word statement
defending Wright and his “flagship” congregation. The statement lauded
Wright’s church for its community service and work to nurture youth and the
pastor for speaking out against homophobia and sexism in the black
community.
“It’s time for all of us to say no to these attacks and to declare that we
will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our
congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological
ends,” John H. Thomas, United Church of Christ’s president, said in the
statement.
From the above, we are led to believe that Obama never heard Rev. Wright preach all the hate for the rich and the white people.
Rev. Wright has set race relations back another 100 years. How can Obama stay in a church for 20 years and did not know what the sermoms were about? What we are talking about here are very serious matters that hate has been preached into the minds of a group of people that attended a church for soul saving and it turned out to be selling their soul to the devil in the form of Rev. Wright.
What a sad day for the people of the United States of America that a preacher can stand up in his church and say “God damn America”.
—
From The State March 15, 2008
In a sermon on the Sunday after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,
Wright suggested the United States brought on the attacks.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the
thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Wright
said. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black
South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done
overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s
chickens are coming home to roost.”
In a 2003 sermon, he said blacks should condemn the United States.
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a
three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no,
God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn
America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for
as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
He also gave a sermon in December comparing Obama to Jesus, promoting his
candidacy and criticizing his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and
a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright told a cheering
congregation. “Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called
a nigger.”
Obama told MSNBC that he would not repudiate Wright as a man, describing him
as “like an uncle” who says something that he disagrees with and must speak
out against. He also said he expects his political opponents will use video
of the sermons to attack him as the campaign goes on.
Questions about Obama’s religious beliefs have dogged him throughout his
candidacy. He’s had to fight against false Internet rumors suggesting he’s
really a Muslim intent on destroying the United States, and now his pastor’s
words uttered nearly seven years ago have become an issue.
Obama wrote on the Huffington Post that he never heard Wright say any of the
statements, but he acknowledged that they have raised legitimate questions
about the nature of his relationship with the pastor and the church. He
wrote that he joined Wright’s church nearly 20 years ago, familiar with the
pastor’s background as a former Marine and respected biblical scholar who
lectured at seminaries across the country.
“Reverend Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my
life,” he wrote. “And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our
obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor and to
seek justice at every turn.”
He said Wright’s controversial statements first came to his attention at the
beginning of his presidential campaign last year, and he condemned them.
Because of his long and deep ties to the 6,000-member congregation church,
Obama said he decided not to leave.
“With Reverend Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev.
Otis Moss III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with
a church that has done so much good,” he wrote.
Also Friday, the United Church of Christ issued a 1,400-word statement
defending Wright and his “flagship” congregation. The statement lauded
Wright’s church for its community service and work to nurture youth and the
pastor for speaking out against homophobia and sexism in the black
community.
“It’s time for all of us to say no to these attacks and to declare that we
will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our
congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological
ends,” John H. Thomas, United Church of Christ’s president, said in the
statement.
From the above, we are led to believe that Obama never heard Rev. Wright preach all the hate for the rich and the white people.
Rev. Wright has set race relations back another 100 years. How can Obama stay in a church for 20 years and did not know what the sermoms were about? What we are talking about here are very serious matters that hate has been preached into the minds of a group of people that attended a church for soul saving and it turned out to be selling their soul to the devil in the form of Rev. Wright.
What a sad day for the people of the United States of America that a preacher can stand up in his church and say “God damn America”.
—
Obama claiming he is unaware of the racism of Reverand Wright and Louis Farakan is about as credible as a 20-year member of the Ku Klux Klan claiming to be unaware that they harbored racist notions.