Race, Class, and the Democrats

If we want to free the country from the clutches of the big oil and big business driven and controlled Republican White House we, Democrats, need to stick together and forge forward against the GOP war machine.

"Anyone but McCain" should be the battle cry.

LOL!! That what I keep saying about the Lobbyist controlled Bush White House.

Sorry, I do not believe Obama represents all of America. He is the darling of rich liberal people and college students that have nothing to compare him to but George Bush. Obama lacks exprience, especially in international affairs. He has no grasp on how to resolve the war in Iraq. Further, I am insulted by his derrogatory comments about women and rural Americans. I seet this campaign as unfair because until April, no one asked Obama any hard questions, no questioned his past associations with racists and criminals, no lone ooked at his lack of actual voting as a lgeislator and certainly no one questioned his change of heart of key issues or how his staff has does the wink, wink on other issues. I see him as the great divider of America, not the great uniter. In an Obama country, working class, middle state Americans are outdated and unimportant. Why does he say "West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky are not important?" The answer is because he doesn't believe what he calls the rust belt and its voters are important.

The comments on this article illustrate very well what the Economist magazine tentatively predicted before this Presidential campaign began: discontent with Bush and the Republican party is high, but the Democrats could still miss their chance.

And judging by these comments, they are missing their chance, and for much the same reason as the Economist predicted! In all this irrational fervor for either Clinton or Obama, the Democratic party has done what it so often does: it forgets the average voters fears and concerns, insisting on proposing a candidate who cannot appeal to them.

Both Linda G. and Lora H. have shown why they cannot appeal to them, both have shown the kind of thinking the successful Presidential candidate must grapple with. Neither Democratic candidate is in a position to tackle this.

Finally, I have to say that both Linda & Lora have at least some valid points: after the things Obama's wife and his pastor have said, Obama cannot dodge the accusation of racism. Hilary's weaknesses are different: the party seems to have forgotten how many people love to hate Hilary, and they vote.

I think the question should be, Will Obama's nomination be a set-back for black America?

I sadly think there is a lot of bigotry in America still. If Obama was an UFS/EOTP (Up From Slavery/Eyes On The Prize) African American, I don't think he would have made it into the presidential race unfortunately. But, being a white Midwesterner with a Kenyan father, he is acceptable. And I think it would be awesome if the first black president had a family history that went back to that "peculiar institution." Instead, he is just a politician benefiting from young idealists who see what they want to see, and seasoned politicians who see a tool to move their agenda forward.

After suffering eight years with a president appointed by the Supreme Court, do we really want another four to eight years with a president that was appointed by the corporate media?


Furthermore, for the long-run good of the Democratic Party, I suggest taking the no Obama pledge. I don't agree with being a "good Democrat." I am a life-long Democrat and it pains me to see so many good candidates fall by the wayside. Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is a good politician and probably a good person, but I don't believe that his rise was organic. What bothers me about Obama his hypocracy and the free ride he has gotten.

Truth be told, I am a Hillary supporter, and a bit resentful of the sexism that dogged her campaign. While G. Ferraro's remarks rankled, I think in time she will be proven right.

If there is such a thing as female chauvinist pigs (Who do not strap on Power tools...that is) Some of us here in feminist land have no allegiance to a woman , just because she is a woman. The "You've Come a Long Way Baby" mantra of the feminists in the 1970's, when the movement really took off, really shows we have not come a long way at all. When no less than 11 countries around the world have elected a woman president, prime minister or other heads of their countries, the USA is still stuck under the all white male patriarchy. Bless Hillary's heart for trying to throw a monkey wrench in the usual voting choices we had before, but bless Obama's heart even more for throwing a bigger monkey wrench in the good ole white boy way. It thouroughly confuses the voters who would rather see a white woman than a black man ever be president.

This is the first time in American history when 2 monkey wrenches have been thrown into the status quo. When before we only two choices A )and B).........When you give C for an answer it tends to confuse people. Add a D and it further confuses people. Add All of the Above and nobody will give that answer because they think it must be a trick answer. Yet that is the way it is. We want a quasi God/Jesus for president. (George Bush won with the evangelical christians that way) Somebody who can be all things to all people).......and that ain't never gonna happen.

Can anyone imagine what it would be like if we had say 4 or 5 viable "other" party candidates for president?

Talk about a monkey wrench.

I mean no offence, but my evaluation of B. Obama's brilliance and potential ranking among past presidents does not place him as high as Lincoln. If B. Obama were like Lincoln, the national conversation would be a lot different. Lincoln would not be satisfied with the widely discredited commercial "show debate," format that we now accept. With every debate, B. Obama became more and more undressed. In debates his graceful stump speeches were of limited utility because, when real debatting actually did occur he could only parry with slogans and change the subject. His vague and rehearsed mouthings are suitable for the format of "show debate," and he was wise not to overreach. But that should not be the measure of a presidential candidate. No, Lincoln would not play it safe by simply trying not to lose his debates, and then stop debating in order to put the brakes on his declining poll numbers.

Catherine - My thoughts echo yours and I do believe yours is the most intelligent comment that I've read on this thread. I definitely would never consider Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman. I think Senator Obama has proven himself time and again - to me he's already the winner. Salud.

Then look inside yourself and make sure that little seed of bigotry that may have been sewn in you by whatever is not what is really making your decision. Because those voters are far more dangerous than a thousand Rev. Wright

You know Catherine - I've long wondered about those seeds of bigotry - where do they come from? Salud.

Can Barack Obama win in November without a big thumbs-up from Hillary Clinton's white voters? Can the Democrats pull it together across race and class lines?

Absolutely!!! Salud.