Liberal Warnings on the Consequences of an Obama Loss

[Barry]

September 23, 2008
Liberals' Warnings About Obama Loss May Prove Self-Fulfilling
By Dennis Prager

If Barack Obama loses the 2008 election, liberal hell will break loose.

Seven weeks before the 2008 presidential election, liberals are warning America that if Barack Obama loses, it is because Americans are racist. Of course, that this means that Democrats (and independents) are racist, since Republicans will vote Republican regardless of the race of the Democrat, is an irony apparently lost on the Democrats making these charges.

That an Obama loss will be due to racism is becoming as normative a liberal belief as "Bush Lied, People Died," a belief that has generated intense rage among many liberals. But "Obama lost because of white racism" will be even more enraging. Rage over the Iraq War has largely focused on President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. But if Obama loses, liberal rage will focus on millions of fellow Americans and on American society.

And it could become a rage the likes of which America has not seen in a long time, if ever. It will first and foremost come from within black America. The deep emotional connection that nearly every black American has to an Obama victory is difficult for even empathetic non-blacks to measure. A major evangelical pastor told me that even evangelical black pastors who share every conservative value with white evangelical pastors, including pro-life views on abortion, will vote for Obama. They feel their very dignity is on the line.

That is why the growing chorus -- already nearing unanimity -- of liberal commentators and politicians ascribing an Obama loss to American racism is so dangerous.

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic: "White racism means that Obama needs more than a small but clear lead to win."

Jack Cafferty of CNN: "The polls remain close. Doesn't make sense ... unless it's race."

Jacob Weisberg of Newsweek and Slate: "The reason Obama isn't ahead right now is ... the color of his skin. ... If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth."

Nicholas D. Kristof of New York Times: "Religious prejudice (against Obama) is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice."

Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a speech to union workers: "Are you going to give up your house and your job and your children's futures because he's black?"

Similar comments have been made by Kansas's Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, and by writers in Time magazine. And according to The Associated Press: "A poll conducted by The Associated Press and Yahoo News, in conjunction with Stanford University, revealed that a fairly significant percentage of Democrats and independents may not vote for Sen. Barack Obama because of his race." If you read the poll, it does not in fact suggest this conclusion. The pollsters assert that any person with any negative view of black life means that the person is racist and means that he would not vote for Obama. Both conclusions are unwarranted. But "Obama will lose because of racism" is how the poll takers and the media spin it.*

Why do liberals believe that if Obama loses it will be due to white racism?

One reason is the liberal elite's contempt for white Americans with less education -- even if they are Democrats.

A second reason is that it is inconceivable to most liberals that an Obama loss -- especially a narrow one -- will be due to Obama's liberal views or inexperience or to admiration for John McCain.

The third reason is that the further left you go, the more insular you get. Americans on the left tend to talk only to one another; study only under left-wing teachers; and read only fellow leftists. That is why it is a shock to so many liberals when a Republican wins a national election -- where do all these Republican voters come from? And that in turn explains why liberals ascribe Republican presidential victories to unfair election tactics ("Swift-boating" is the liberals' reason for the 2004 Republican victory). In any fair election, Americans will see the left's light.

If Obama loses, it will not be deemed plausible that Americans have again rejected a liberal candidate, indeed the one with the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. Liberals will explain an Obama defeat as another nefarious Republican victory. Combining contempt for many rural and middle-class white Americans with a longstanding belief in the inevitability of a Democratic victory in 2008 (after all, everyone they talk to despises the Republicans and believes Republicans have led the country to ruin), there will be only one reason Obama did not win -- white racism.

One executive at a black radio station told me when I interviewed him on my radio show at the Democratic National Convention that he could easily see riots if Obama loses a closely contested election. Interestingly, he said he thought blacks would be far more accepting of a big McCain victory.

I pray he is wrong on the first point. But it does seem that liberals are continuing to do whatever they can to increase anger at America, or at least at "white America." For 40 years, liberals have described the most open and tolerant society on earth as racist and xenophobic. If Barack Obama loses, the results of this liberal depiction of America may become frighteningly apparent.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... obama.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I made this point to Corlyss in a P.S. the other night. I was absolutely enraged to read the conclusions that liberals in the media were jumping to as a result of these poll results. There is nothing about the poll that indicates the people who said, for instance, that blacks are violent mean that they are inherently violent, as opposed to the clear fact that there is a problem with excessive violent crime in some segments of the black community. And it is certainly not clear that someone who acknowledges that there is too much violence in parts of the black community won't vote for Obama as a result of their observation of reality. Yet I read multiple headlines proclaiming that these poll results show that racism will make it difficult for Obama to win a close election. That's an absolute bogus conclusion and one that has potentially very harmful consequences for the country, as the above piece indicates.

[Teresa B]

Hopefully Obama wins, making all this polarizing nonsense a forever moot point.

Teresa

[Ted]

Racism will be here long after we’re all gone; the real consequence of an Obama loss will be who takes office in Jan

[Barry]

Whatever your view of the candidates from your own ideological perspective, the notion, which I have heard over and over again from liberals I come into contact with both personally and professionally, that there isn't a logical reason to think McCain is the better candidate simply defies logic to the point of being mind-boggling.

The truth is that it couldn't be more clear which of the two candidates has a more impressive record of personal and professional accomplishment, yet those who support that candidate are looked at like they just fell from Mars by those who support his opponent; as if there is no logical reason to think McCain is the superior candidate. It sometimes feels like I'm in a fantasy when I talk to these people.

I can only attribute it to reason three given by Prager above.

[JackC]

A very large number of people, including white people, will vote for Obama precisely BECAUSE he black, and thus will be a big shake up to the "status quo." I mean this is, after all, a fellow who has virtually NO experience, and does not have a single new idea about anything. Any idiot can get up and say that he is a "healer" and that he is for "change." (Though now he sounds just like every other class warfare guy the Dems have selected.) If he were white, he wouldn't have stood a chance in the Democratic primaries. I'll bet that some of the people most likely to say that white people who don't vote for Obama are racists are the some of the same people who suppprt him precisely because he is black.

Anyone who thinks that race isn't a part of this is being foolish. But issues and other things can trump race. At the end of the day, Obama is just a smart charming man with no experience and no ideas, who sounds just like eery other liberal politician from Dukakis to Gore to Kerry. I'll bet that if Colin Powell had run as a Republican, he would have gotten a lot of the votes of those whites who the liberal/leftists are only too prepared to call racists.

The fact is that liberals in the big cities don't understand, don't want to understand, and don't like, rural and small town America.

[Barry]

... I'll bet that if Colin Powell had run as a Republican, he would have gotten a lot of the votes of those whites who the liberal/leftists are only too prepared to call racists. ...

That's exactly right, and Michael Barone had an interesting column a while back using that same argument to make the point that those who think there will be throngs of whites who will vote against Obama because of his race are wrong. In 1996, all relevant polling indicated that almost all white conservates were willing to vote for Powell over Clinton if the former were to run that year.

[Donald Isler]

So Dennis Prager doesn't think racism's a factor in American politics anymore? Really? Want to ask him if anti-semitism still exists, and may be a factor in how some people vote? A show of hands, please, for those who think he doesn't worry about anti-semitism anymore!

They're both a factor to some people, and we will see afterwards to what extent racism was a factor in this election.

In the meantime, good old Dennis is just engaging in some gold old fashioned right-wing fear-mongering. Sorry to see that he has some takers here.

[Corlyss_D]

A very large number of people, including white people, will vote for Obama precisely BECAUSE he black, and thus will be a big shake up to the "status quo."

I disagree. Most (not all but most) of those people are black, and they were already going to vote for the Democrat, regardless of who the candidate was. These voters would have voted Democratic if the Dims had run a toilet bowl, based on the Dims' operative philosophy that the Republican, whoever he was, would be lashed up to Bush and thus easily defeated.The idea that people not already inclined to vote Democratic are going to vote for Obama because he black is . . . well . . . needs substantiation from polling IMO.

I'll bet that if Colin Powell had run as a Republican, he would have gotten a lot of the votes of those whites who the liberal/leftists are only too prepared to call racists.

I agree. Of course we'll never know, but my instinct is that he would have. I continue to believe that the first black president will have to come from the Republican party. Why? Because, like the man said in the article I posted last night, this is a center right nation and the kind of black politician that succeeds in the Democratic party has pretty much the same racist/race-baiting background that Obama comes from: the extortionist "community organizer" on the Alinksy model with the same tawdry suspect urban political machine behind him or her. Republicans don't. They are often ex-military or business men who never thought about becoming an elected official until they had some life-experience behind them, had made a little money, formed networks of similarly inclined people, and never planned to make politics their life's work. It's this the fundamental difference between the two types of politicians in the respective parties. The center-right American people who elect presidents are basically suspicious of the Democratic politician because of his background and how his background manifests a shameless dependence on the state for income-redistribution handouts.

The fact is that liberals in the big cities don't understand, don't want to understand, and don't like, rural and small town America.[/quote]

[JackC]

So Dennis Prager doesn't think racism's a factor in American politics anymore? Really? Want to ask him if anti-semitism still exists, and may be a factor in how some people vote? A show of hands, please, for those who think he doesn't worry about anti-semitism anymore!

They're both a factor to some people, and we will see afterwards to what extent racism was a factor in this election.

In the meantime, good old Dennis is just engaging in some gold old fashioned right-wing fear-mongering. Sorry to see that he has some takers here.

Excuse me??? There have been lots of statements by liberals that is Obama loses it is because of racism. Do you dispute that. How exactly is an article pointing that out just "good old fashioned right-wing fear-mongering."

No one here has denied that there is racism or that it will play SOME role in the election. Certaily I haven't. What I have disputed, and what I think Barry has agreed with, is that it is offensive to suggest that the only way that Obama could lose would be because of racism.

[Corlyss_D]

So Dennis Prager doesn't think racism's a factor in American politics anymore? Really? Want to ask him if anti-semitism still exists, and may be a factor in how some people vote? A show of hands, please, for those who think he doesn't worry about anti-semitism anymore!

Hey, Don, foul! False analogy, and off-topic. This is not about anti-Semitism in American elections. This discussion is about the usual bs the Dims throw at people who don't swoon over a race-based program, in this case, the nomination of a black presidential candidate.

Democrats entire world view would implode if they couldn't cry "racist" every time some fiscal-minded Republican asked for evidence of the success of social programs thru which Dims funnel vast fortunes to their political operatives.

[Corlyss_D]

How exactly is an article pointing that out just "good old fashioned right-wing fear-mongering."

Oh, you know, Jack. Every word out of the mouth of a conservative is "right-wing fear mongering." That's not at all like Dims shouting "racist!" or "bigot!" every time their nakedness is revealed.

[JackC]

A very large number of people, including white people, will vote for Obama precisely BECAUSE he black, and thus will be a big shake up to the "status quo."

I disagree. Most (not all but most) of those people are black, and they were already going to vote for the Democrat, regardless of who the candidate was. These voters would have voted Democratic if the Dims had run a toilet bowl, based on the Dims' operative philosophy that the Republican, whoever he was, would be lashed up to Bush and thus easily defeated.The idea that people not already inclined to vote Democratic are going to vote for Obama because he black is . . . well . . . needs substantiation from polling IMO.

Yes, most Obama supporters were going to vote Democrat regardless of who the candidate was. (The same holds true for Republicans). My point was that within the Democrat party, many of Obama's supporters, including any of his White supporters, chose him because he was black, not because of his positions on the issues, whatever those might have been, or because he was a "healer" and in favor of "change." Of course, some just hated Hillary, but there were other candidates to whom they could have gravitated. If Obama were white, I don't think he would have won the nomination. The press and the Dem machine would have crucified him based on his lack of experience.

[Corlyss_D]

My point was that within the Democrat party, many of Obama's supporters, including any of his White supporters, chose him because he was black, not because of his positions on the issues, whatever those might have been, or because he was a "healer" and in favor of "change."

Okay. I agree if we combine race with message. It was important that Obama not be a younger Jesse Jackson. I think the message was what attracted a lot of independent voters originally.

If Obama were white, I don't think he would have won the nomination. The press and the Dem machine would have crucified him based on his lack of experience.

Probably true. If there hadn't been the race issue to make him seem transformational, the press would have backed Hillary and tried mightily to depress her negatives. As it was, they took sides early on, because of that "tingle up the leg" factor.

(The same holds true for Republicans).

Not to get distracted by a detail, but I think in this cycle many Republicans were extremely disaffected with McCain and were prepared to sit out the election. He never really pitched to Republicans because he's always understood that the independents were his salvation. That's why you hear people like The Economist (pardon my obsession with them but they are very good), regretting what they consider McCain's abandonment of his maverick instincts to curry favor with the base.

[RebLem]

You know, I think if Barry--or anyone--wants to foam and fume, and insult everyone who is for Obama by saying it is obvious that Grandpa and Marilyn Munster are the better ticket, if he wants to spit in the eyes of people who have been his friends for years, if he wants to exhaust every bit of good will he has here by defaming Barack Obama and saying anyone against Grandpa is stupid, then I think we should no longer try to reason with him. We should just don the kevlar and get a cement brick wall between ourselves and him, and let him explode.

Posted on September 23rd, 2008, the 1,973rd day after Shrub announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, the 43rd day before the November 4th US general election, and the 120th day before the end of the Cheney Kakistocracy. RebLem

[Teresa B]

Undoubtedly there are pro-Obama people who would declare an Obama loss a result of racism, just as some blamed Nader's run in 2000 for Gore's "defeat". No one can reasonably deny racism will be one factor in Obama's chances; it may be enough to decide the election, just as Nader's small number of Florida votes in 2000, most of which would have gone to Gore, were enough to turn the election. So, shall we totally blame Nader? No, just as we can't totally blame racism if Obama does not win.

Teresa

[Barry]

You know, I think if Barry--or anyone--wants to foam and fume, and insult everyone who is for Obama by saying it is obvious that Grandpa and Marilyn Munster are the better ticket, if he wants to spit in the eyes of people who have been his friends for years, if he wants to exhaust every bit of good will he has here by defaming Barack Obama and saying anyone against Grandpa is stupid, then I think we should no longer try to reason with him. We should just don the kevlar and get a cement brick wall between ourselves and him, and let him explode.

There is a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one, Rob. When have I insulted everyone who is for Obama? I'd like you to point out specifically when I've done that or admit how ludicrous your above statement is.
While you're calling a great man Grandpa Munster with derision, I continue to be respectful of Obama and have gone so far as to say that he is a cut above most presidential candidates in recent times when it comes to character and that I'll fall in line behind him as my president if he wins because I think the last 16 years of Americans only recognizing the legitimacy of presidents from their own party has been terrible for the country. You'll also never see me distort Obama's name (or give him an insulting nickname), but you may see me telling those who do that they're wrong to do so (in fact, I lectured a friend about calling him Barry O in an email just last night and have said on this board that I think it's flat out wrong to question his name or religion).

Now unless you're saying I'm under some obligation to think Obama is the better candidate in spite of the clear difference in the records of the two candidates (and how pointing that out to people is "insulting" Obama is another thing you'll have to explain ... YOU are the one who is claiming I say McCain is clearly the "better" candidate, while I've said he's got the more accomplished record ... whether that makes him a "better" candidate is for each voter to decide .... my problem is with people who act as if there is no logical reason to favor McCain when that's clearly not the case) or that I should just take it in good nature when I get told over and over by liberals that I'm nuts to consider voting for McCain, then you either owe me an apology for your distortion of my posts on Obama or that will be the end of our communication for a while.

(and as to the crack about me spitting in the eyes of people who have been my friends for years, as usual, you've got it completely backwards ... in the past two weeks, I've had two "friends" answer the phone not by greeting me with a hello, but by immediately going at me about my nerve to support McCain, another ask me how I could turn to the "dark side" and a third ask me and another friend who supports McCain how intelligent people like us could be so misguided .... so you'll have to excuse me for getting a little annoyed at these people)

[GK]

If Obama loses, before I even consider racism as a cause, I will wonder about his stupidity in not selecting Hillary Clinton as his VP.

[jbuck919]

Whatever the pundits say, I don't see anything but perhaps a small faction raising the racism card if Obama loses. Just as the party can't control the women who are voting for McCain because they want to "punish" the demoncrats, politics as a whole can't control how everyone will react to a given electoral outcome.

Now if the pundits were saying there would be a "liberal explosion" if Obama is defeated because liberal positions such as gay rights and, probably, universal health care will have taken a blow, then it might make some sense. But if those things mattered there would be no doubt about Obama winning in the first place.

[Corlyss_D]

the demoncrats,

Freakin' brilliant, John! How come that never occurred to me? Post of the Day Award to ya!

But if those things mattered there would be no doubt about Obama winning in the first place.

OMG! Two insights in a single post!

[Barry]

September 24, 2008
The Media Play the Race Card on Obama
By Jonah Goldberg

The news media have been shamefully stoking the idea that the only way Barack Obama could possibly lose the presidential election is if American racists have their way. Indeed, the fact that Obama isn't leading in polls by a wide margin "doesn't make sense ... unless it's race," says CNN's Jack Cafferty.

Slate's Jacob Weisberg says Obama is losing among older white voters because of the "color of his skin," in an article subtitled "Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him."

Many journalists are so convinced that racism is the only possible explanation for an Obama loss that they are beginning to see any effective anti-Obama ad as an attempt by John McCain to "viciously exacerbate" America's "race-fueled angst," in the words of one New York magazine writer.

For example, a McCain ad (citing the Washington Post) noted that Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed former head of Fannie Mae who helped bring about the current Wall Street meltdown, advised the Obama campaign. Time's Karen Tumulty proclaims that because Raines is black, McCain is "playing the race card."

Why, she wants to know, didn't McCain attack Obama's even stronger ties to the even more culpable former Fannie Mae Chairman Jim Johnson, who had to resign from Obama's vice presidential search team because of his sketchy dealings with mortgage giant Countrywide Financial? "One reason might be that Johnson is white; Raines is black," suggests Tumulty.

Or another reason might be that the McCain campaign was saving that attack for its very next ad, which is what happened.

According to numerous critics, McCain's "celebrity" ads featuring Paris Hilton and Britney Spears were nothing but tawdry race-baiting because they subliminally played on white America's fear of black men violating the delicate flowers of white American womanhood. You'd think a cognitive warning bell would have gone off the moment anyone started suggesting that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are icons of chastity.

This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people -- and how highly they think of themselves ... and Obama. Obama's lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view.

Similarly, McCain's experience, his record of bipartisanship, his heroism: These too count for nothing.

Racism is all there is. Obama wins, and America sheds its racial past. Obama loses, and we're a nation of "Bull" Connors.

Much of the argument for the centrality of race in this election hinges on the so-called Bradley effect. In 1982, Tom Bradley, Los Angeles' African American mayor, was polling well among white voters in the race for California governor. Bradley lost, suggesting that large numbers of whites had lied to pollsters about their intention to vote for him.

I have no doubt that the Bradley effect is real. But what often gets confused is that the Bradley effect does not reflect racism; it captures voters' fear of appearing racist. There's no reason to assume those who lie to pollsters are the racists. (Actual racists might lie about why they aren't voting for the black candidate, but it's unlikely they would lie about voting for him.) But for Obama supporters and the media, poll results are some kind of sacred, binding covenant. And if voters don't keep their promise, the media have no problem seeing racism at work.

The media's obsession with race in this election is, in fact, probably fueling the Bradley effect. Repeating over and over that voting against Obama is racist only encourages non-racist people to be embarrassed to admit that they plan to vote for McCain.

Another rich irony is that the only racists who matter in this election are the ones in the Democratic Party. News flash: Republicans aren't voting for the Democratic nominee because they're Republicans. A new AP-Yahoo News poll confirms this. It claims that racial prejudice is a significant factor among the independents and Democrats Obama needs to win, specifically among Hillary Clinton's primary voters. According to the pollsters' statistical modeling, support for Obama is six points lower than it would be if there were no white racism.

I'm skeptical about those findings, as well as the overemphasis on race generally. But to the extent that race is a factor, here's the richest irony of all: Obama's problem is with precisely those voters the Democratic Party claims to fight for, working- and middle-class white folks. Of course, Democrats can't openly complain that their own vital constituency is racist.

If the media were more objective, we'd be hearing a lot more about the racism at the heart of the Democratic Party (imagine if the black nominee this year were a Republican!). But such objectivity would cause too much cognitive dissonance for a press corps that defines "racist" as shorthand for Republican and sees itself as the publicity arm of the Obama campaign.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... ard_o.html

[Bro]

Well, they blame racism for a lot of things in America. Wasn't racism the reason Nixon won in 68'. If the author in the op is a conservative, why does he care what Liberals think about something that hasn't even happened yet ? I'm a McCain supporter but even I don't have any illusions that he will win in November.

Sarah Palin may be a dart aimed at the Democrats heart but people don't vote for VP's in general elections. If Obama loses, it will be due to inexperience and shooting his mouth off when he shouldn't.


Bro

[Barry]

... If the author in the op is a conservative, why does he care what Liberals think about something that hasn't even happened yet ? ...

Thanks for the comments, Bro. I can't speak for the writer, but I can tell you the reason it concerns me is:

a. I don't want African-Americans who are so emotionally invested in Obama to think he lost because he is black. I want them remaining involved in the political process and plugging away for four years from now. I really fear the consequences of the A-A community should Obama lose and they think it's because of his race.

b. I don't want another four or eight years of the opposition denying the legitimacy of the president because they don't think he was elected fairly.

[Corlyss_D]

Well, they blame racism for a lot of things in America. Wasn't racism the reason Nixon won in 68'.

It's part of Dim/lib mythology that racism was the cause. According to Lewis Gould's 1968: The Election That Changed America, the #1 issue according to the polling that occurred all year was rampant crime and rioting in the streets, of which there was a lot that year. Not the Viet Nam war, or civil rights. The Dim/lib spin is that because a lot of the rioting was done in inner cities and by blacks, that crime and rioting were mere code words for "racism." I don't think that is the case myself because if it were, Nixon would never have proposed or implemented affirmative action nor would that program have been as accepted as it was.

[Barry]

Sept. 25, 2008

Racial bigotry won't be his undoing
By ARNOLD S. TREBACH
GUEST COLUMNIST

Now that Barack Obama is slipping somewhat in the polls the cry has gone out in the land that if indeed he is defeated, it will be the result of racial bigotry.

CNN's Jack Cafferty summed up the thinking of many when he observed that the differences between the two candidates could not be better defined: "Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense ... Unless it's race." Read "racial bigotry." Michael Grunwald of Time magazine agreed and said race is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.

However, I want to talk about it. To get to the bottom line right now, all of those doomsayers are wrong on many counts.

Remember that Obama has not been defeated as yet and the odds remain that he won't be. He is an incredibly talented speaker with a wonderful resume. He won a grueling primary victory over Hillary Clinton through the votes of millions of Americans, most of whom will show up on Nov. 4.

Yet, there is no doubt that racial bigotry will play a role in the final result and that multitudes of people will vote against him simply because he is an African-American. On the other hand, there are other multitudes who will vote for him precisely because of his race. Those positively inclined multitudes are composed of at least two major groups.

The first major group would be the blacks who view his candidacy as a vindication of centuries of abuse and as a matter of healing grievous wounds that still fester in the hearts and souls of the black experience in this country. The second major group is composed of whites, mainly liberals, who believe that this nation must demonstrate to the world that America has put its bigoted past behind it and welcomes with open arms its first nonwhite chief executive.

Those positively inclined voters greatly outnumber the bigots. If they did not, how did Obama create that tsunami of votes that swept him into the nomination? That tsunami of nonbigoted voters demonstrated something that is yet another elephant in the room that nobody wants to discuss.

We have to face the happy fact that America has evolved into a largely post-racial society. This positive fact runs counter to the standard victim catechism spouted by liberal university professors, such as Cornel West at Princeton, my alma mater, and by many racial entrepreneurs, such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

The fact that Obama won the Democratic nomination in a fair and open election proves my point. If he fails to win the final election, this will not disprove my argument that this country is in a post-racial era. What would his defeat prove? It would demonstrate primarily that millions of people, for whatever their reasons, were convinced that he was not the best person for the job or that they liked the other candidates better.

I suspect that my own angst about voting for him is characteristic of many other voters who have not made up their minds. Never, in a long and happy life, have I ever, drunk or sober, voted for a Republican presidential candidate.

Yet, I am thinking of doing so now because I believe that the nation is in such danger from Islamic extremists and from national leaders who encourage them, especially Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and also the leaders of Saudi Arabia. I want a tough leader in the Oval Office to confront them and their ilk, such as Vladimir Putin of Russia and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Moreover, I want an American leader committed to the survival of Israel, our major ally in the world.

John McCain seems the toughest of all four candidates. The Democrats and Obama leave me wondering if they have the guts to face the political monsters of the world. I suspect that McCain, even with a naïve vice president at his side, is more likely than Obama to courageously confront the great threats facing our nation. If I vote for McCain it will not be because of Obama's race but for many other reasons based upon objective analysis. That, I assure, you is not racial bigotry.

Arnold S. Trebach, professor emeritus at American University, was a civil rights protester in the South and a federal civil rights official.http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/3 ... ace24.html

[Barry]

Blame deep-seated racism if Obama loses

September 26, 2008

DEBORAH DOUGLAS ddouglas@suntimes.com
Pssst! I have a not-so-secret to tell you: America is no place for uppity black folks. At least that's what I've been finding out lately.

Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia actually used this dated word, which means a black person -- usually striving to get educated and live a better life -- who doesn't know her place: "Just from what little I've seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity."

Another Georgian, Rick Goddard, invoked it too: "Last night, Newt Gingrich disarmed a very uppity newscaster who tried to question him on the capabilities and leadership of Gov. Palin," the retired Air Force general said about a black journalist.

This sentiment isn't limited to grass-chewing Southerners, considering a recent AP-Stanford University poll that validates what I've suspected: If Barack Obama doesn't win in November, we can blame racism.

Now before you undecideds and independents go sucking your teeth, thinking, "Well, what do you expect a nappy-headed black woman to say?" hear me out: The issue is really about modern-day "racial misgivings" rather than the straight-up, hate-filled "racism" we associate with hanging nooses of bygone days. Many whites surveyed associated blacks with being "lazy," "violent" and responsible for their own troubles. Blame these deep-seated racial beliefs for Obama's inertia in the polls. He'd be way ahead if 40 percent of white Americans didn't have negative views of African Americans.

But c'mon, look at the economic crisis . . . the jobless rate . . . the war. If Obama were a white guy named Trevor Gustafson with half a brain, I suspect voters would be clamoring to vote for him just to try something different -- something that might work. It so happens Obama is pretty smart, pragmatic and down to earth. Far from an elite, he just finished paying his student loans. Strivers like him are what you might call, um, "uppity."

But the Great American Gut Check won't give Obama a break. Meanwhile, voters and the old white men (sounding crusty, yet adorable) who call me are inexplicably all too willing to support status quo Republican John McCain and give his running mate -- average American Good Ol' Girl Sarah Palin -- a pass.

I really can't blame white Americans for their misgivings. I want to, but I can't. It seems many of us are hard-wired to cling to our biases even in the face of new facts that overturn our beliefs, says Robert Burton, author of On Being Certain, in a piece at Salon. Burton cites a Cornell University study showing that incompetent people tend to overestimate their abilities, fail to recognize other people's skill and don't see the "extremity of their inadequacy." He links "unshakable self-confidence" to feelings of conviction or rightness -- what we might call the gut. Neurologically speaking, these feelings don't help us make better decisions.

The AP-Stanford poll really did a favor for those who consider themselves reasonable and fair. It coaxed out beliefs many hold but don't want to admit and forces us to challenge our thinking to make sure we're voting in our own best interests. That means it's not too late to avoid succumbing to our baser instincts -- the churn of the gut. But what do I know? I'm just an uppity black woman.

Deborah Douglas is an editorial board member.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/douglas/11 ... 26.article

[Corlyss_D]

News & Opinion
Friday, September 26, 2008
David Frum
Rationalizing Obama's Defeat

You must know the old joke:
A young man returns home from a job interview at a radio station, dejected. His mother sees his sunken face and understands immediately that something has gone wrong.

“My son! The sport’s announcer’s job—you didn’t get it? Nobody knows more about sports than you! How could they reject you?”

The son: “Mom, it was anti-sss …. anti-ssssssss … anti-sssssssssss … anti-SSSSEMMM-itism.”

Democrats are already preparing their excuses for the possible defeat of Barack Obama in November. That was an important column Bob Shrum just wrote. True, the column offers Barack Obama unfortunately little guidance as to how to win the election. But it does offer an all-purpose excuse if Obama should lose: racism. Some might say that five weeks in advance is a little early to be developing rationalizations for defeat. And others might say that a candidate who has consistently led in almost every poll since early summer has little need for rationalizations. But those who say these things do not know the Democratic Party!

Maybe I am unfair here, but to an outsider it seems that Democrats see these quadrennial presidential contests not as trials between two parties with the voters deciding, but as trials of the voters! Are the voters good enough, decent enough, unprejudiced enough to vote Democratic? Or will they succumb to their lower natures and vote Republican?

At the end of Hunter S. Thompson’s book on the 1972 campaign, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, Thompson listens to the news reports declaring Richard Nixon’s re-election and thinks: “Okay, we are a nation of used car salesmen.” Not for him the thought that there might have been anything wrong with George McGovern or the party that nominated him! If I fail … it shows there’s something wrong with you.

That mode of thinking is obviously very condescending. Less obviously, it is very self-defeating. Suppose the voters are just as lunk-headed as Thompson and (depending on the outcome) Bob Shrum believe. What follows? Yes, another couple of decades of massive illegal immigration may well create a very different electorate. Until then, however, these are the voters you have got. The only route to political power is through convincing them; abusing them does not help with that work.

Even more counter-productive, the blame-the-voters mindset relieves candidates of responsibility for developing and articulating acceptable policies. Barack Obama faces other challenges in this campaign than his race.

Obama is running as the more pacifist candidate in a country where the more nationalist candidate has won every presidential election since 1816. He is running as the more economically collectivist candidate in a country where the more economically individualist candidate has won seven of the 10 elections since 1964. He is a more remote and inaccessible personality and he has a radically less impressive resume than his rival. His personal story not only lacks the heroism of John McCain’s, but it is punctuated with odd gaps and unanswered questions. Obama still has not delivered a fully plausible account of his relationships with such figures as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps the most immediately damaging fact about Obama’s candidacy, however, was his decision not to reach out to his principal party rival, even though she won very nearly as many Democratic votes as he did.

Obama may be The One. But he is far from a perfect candidate, regardless. And Democrats do neither him nor themselves any favors when the only flaws they can see are the flaws in this democracy’s ultimate decision-makers: their employers, the voters.

— DAVID FRUM, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of 6 books, including most recently COMEBACK: Conservatism That Can Win Again. In 2001-2002, he served as speechwriter and special assistant to President George W. Bush. In 2007, he served as senior foreign policy adviser to the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign. He blogs daily at Frum.NationalReview.com.
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/89 ... mas_Defeat
#############################################################

It's time for Shrum to go work for Obama.

[TopoGigio]

A young man returns home from a job interview at a radio station, dejected. His mother sees his sunken face and understands immediately that something has gone wrong.
“My son! The sport’s announcer’s job—you didn’t get it? Nobody knows more about sports than you! How could they reject you?”
The son: “Mom, it was anti-sss …. anti-ssssssss … anti-sssssssssss … anti-SSSSEMMM-itism.”

Sss...sssss....ssssssss....ssssssssssssss...s tart up !
(The Jrudge)

[Agnes Selby]

I do vaguely remember my father telling me about the "Free Democratic Elections" after World War II in Communist Czechoslovakia. You were told
how to vote, or else....

Agnes.