Good to see Bob Herbert hit the nail on the head today and, by the way, backing up my long claim that racism plays a much bigger part in the Democratic primary voting than most admit. Remember that I backed Ed Rendell in his much-lamented recognition that, hey folks, racism (even among Democrats, especially Reagan Democrats in many states) is still very much with us. Here's Bob today on Obama and his "bitter" remarks: "One of the main problems, of course, is that he hasn’t generated as much support as he’d like among white working-class voters."There is no mystery here. Except for people who have been hiding in caves or living in denial, it’s pretty widely understood that a substantial number of those voters — in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and elsewhere — will not vote for a black candidate for president.
"Pennsylvanians themselves will tell you that racial attitudes in some parts of the state are, to be kind, less than enlightened. Gov. Ed Rendell, Hillary Clinton’s most powerful advocate in the state, put it bluntly last February: 'I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.'”
1 comment:
Just as many will not vote for a woman. Sexism as at least as much of a problem as racism in this country. And just because there is racism does not mean that an inexperienced pretty boy who gives good speech should (or not) get the nomination. But the shrub and Ronald Reagan should provide enough examples of why this is a bad idea.
Neither is sexism sufficient reason why a triangulating politician who can't seem to remember whether or not there were bullets whizzing by her head a decade ago (shades of not inhaling) to deny (or give) her the nomination. But is there anyone not in top tax bracket who was better not better off in 1992-2000 than in 1980-1988 or 2000-2008?
I don't particularly like either Dem left standing, but either is by far better than MSM darling McCain.
Post a Comment