Town Square

Post a New Topic

Racial Divide and Politics

Original post made by Kate on May 21, 2008

There is daily analysis about a growing racial divide in the Democrat Party. Those in the know focus on whether white individuals will choose to vote for Obama. I have to wonder why there isn't a similar analysis as to why most black individuals do not vote for Clinton? If 90% plus of the black vote didn't consistently go to Obama, Hillary would be in the lead right now. Seems to me that there's a big problem here that noone is addressing because of the obvious racial issue. It's the elephant in the middle of the room. Nonetheless, November will be here before you know it and this issue better be dealt with sooner rather then later. Obviously, race is important to many voters. Black voters overwhelmingly vote for Obama and that's a fact. Are they voting for Obama because of the color of his skin or based on issues? Both Clinton and Obama have similar stands on the most important issues facing America. Unfortunately, the color of a candidates skin appears to be an important issue in the upcoming Presidential race. The facts in this case speak for themselves. Clinton wins the white vote. Obama wins the black vote. How sad.

Comments (24)

Posted by Carol Mullen, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 21, 2008 at 11:56 am

Iraq.

Enlistment among Latinos did not fall below their percentage of the population; it plummeted among African-Americans.

If John Edwards had left the race sooner, Clinton would not have gained as many delegates as she did. She started out holding her own among African-Americans. Bill Clinton's contemptuous reference to Jesse Jackson solidified Obama's position with offended voters.

Also, both Clinton and Edwards should have turned against the Iraq war at least by late 2004. She would have a major problem debating McCain.

Clinton got votes from women who opposed the Iraq War, but were so eager for a woman President that they were willing to believe she had changed. Her enthusiasm for war against Iran, and her admiring words for John McCain have cost her among the superdelegates, most of whom have their own embarrassing votes to worry about.


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 21, 2008 at 12:24 pm

obama is not ready for the job. having lived his adult life in a narrow-focus enclave, he is out of touch with the country he wants to lead.


Posted by Carol Mullen, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 21, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Obama's kind words for McCain's service are getting him bad press in the left, but they have nowhere else to go. Clinton's words about McCain passing "the commander-in-chief" threshold got her terrible press in the center-right but anti-McCain punditry. It also infuriated uncommitted party regulars, who had stayed uncommitted because they were worried that their candidate would have foot-in-mouth disease.

She should also have kept Bill Clinton out of sight, raising funds.


Posted by Jane, a resident of Professorville
on May 21, 2008 at 1:10 pm



Bill Clinton defined the election in black vs white terms

obama defined himself in racial terms by attending the racist sermons of

rev wright for 20 yrs and dragging his children along and forcing them

to listen to his vile racist and antisemitic rantings

Both are responsible for creating a racial political divide that will last for decades


Posted by the vote is from learning who he is.., a resident of Midtown
on May 21, 2008 at 1:26 pm

What drives me crazy is this simple fact: Barack had the highest number of votes of any candidate, white or black, of ALL races, before the end of February.

That was before anyone knew who he was.

Were we voting FOR him because he was darker? We'll never know. But, I DO know this....

AFTER we started to learn more about his voting record, (or absentee record), his level of experience, who he had chosen to support with his presence and money, who he chose to sit on Boards with and accept political fund raising parties from, what he knew of economics,(nothing), which countries he thought we should invade ( allies like Pakistan) and which ones avoid ( those who want to annhilate us like Iran), how he wants to undercut the Iraqi people, how he was willing to throw his grandmother who rescued him from abhorrent parents away, how he says one thing, then the opposite the next day as if we are stupid, what he thinks of the majority of Americans who go to church and defend out 2nd Amendment,..need I go on?

Of COURSE we started turning against him.

The question is, why is the Black community still voting for him at a rate of 92%? Why is it racist to vote AGAINST Barack on issues, but not FOR Barack on ..whatever reasons you want to ascribe to such a high vote amongst blacks?

I don't buy the whole "racism" reason...he is going down on his merits, or lack of, and more is the pity, because I am very unhappy with McCain. Initially I was so unhappy i was going to stay home, not being able to bear the thought of voting for any of them, preferring either Democrat, Clinton or Obama, to take the blame for liberal policies destroying the country to McCain and the Repubs taking the heat for what will be McCain liberalism. But now, i am so appalled by Barack, I will hold my nose and vote for McCain.

i sure wish the Dem party had been smarter and pushed through someone tolerable.

Of course, the Repub party has gone nuts also, so they are both to blame.

First time in my life there is nobody I can actually support on the ticket..I am going to vote against someone else.


Posted by jackson has done more harm than good., a resident of Midtown
on May 21, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Bill Clinton's "contemptuous" reference to Jesse Jackson...

One, it was only promoted as contemptuous by those who wanted to hear it that way.

Frankly, if he has actually been contemptuous of Jesse, my low estimation of him would have risen, since he and I would agree that Jackson has done more harm to the black population by spreading his vile for the last 20 years.


Posted by Carol Mullen, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 21, 2008 at 1:34 pm

All things being equal, I'd have voted my gender. As it was, most women voted their gender, even against their political interests.

All things being equal, I thought we old people would vote our interests. Turns out, most old people vote their interests or their prejudices, period.

All things being equal, suddenly young people are being registered to vote their interests.

Do you worry about the gender divide, the age divide? The age divide is huge; the gender divide may be larger than I thought, given that a group of male politicians elected Nancy Pelosi speaker, and chose Hillary Clinton as the favored candidate.

Turns out, we humans aren't any better when we vote than in most of our lives.

(One of the reason major Jewish groups are supporting Obama is his record of speeches in large African-American groups against anti-Semitism in the African-American community. There are voices blaming Jews for the Iraq War, but his isn't one of them. Count ourselves lucky for that.)


Posted by I don't vote on -isms., a resident of Midtown
on May 21, 2008 at 1:42 pm

I would never, under any circumstances, vote my gender, age, race or hair color or sexual orientation or ANYTHING that is genetically inherent in me over the person's understanding of and agreement with me on the issues and how to fix them.

I would hope that most people are the same. If not,we are a nation doomed to being robots, voting whatever we are wired to vote.

That is every ism possible.

period.


Posted by most women aren't that stupid, a resident of Midtown
on May 21, 2008 at 1:45 pm

BTW, how can you possibly say "most women voted their gender"...that isn't true.

Maybe most women in the DEMOCRAT party voted their gender. But are you actually trying to imply that most women are that stupid, to vote for someone because she is a woman?

If that is how you meant it, how insulting.


Posted by How is Hilary against a political interest?, a resident of Midtown
on May 21, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Lastly, why do you assume that voting for Hilary was against their political interests?

Do you also assume that I am voting against my political interests if I vote for, say McCain?


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 21, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I will support McCain, even though I find fault with him. No surprise, based on my previous posts. He will stay the course in Iraq, which will deliver a hard-won success. Actually, Barack and Hillary will, too, but they would be very demoralizng to the troops, in how they go about, with their non-support support.

Hillary is now expressing frustration with the mainstream press, becasue they have given a pass to Obama, who is their darling. In other words, she is getting the standard Republican treatment. It's a bit hard to feel sorry for her.

There is one issue, at least, that I agree with Obama, namely nuclear energy for electricity production. He seems to know that there is no other realistic answer. He may be a liberal on many issues, but not, apparently, on this one. He is no fool.

The issue of 90% of blacks voting for Obama is because of race, pure and simple. To suggest otherwise is a fools paradise. He is their home boy. I understand it, and am not, particualary, upset by it. They've been waiting for a long time. Identity issues are very strong in politics, both here and abroad (e.g. women for Hillary). Why is anybody surprised by this?


Posted by Carol Mullen, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 21, 2008 at 2:06 pm

It's against Democratic women's interests because of the things she said and did in her campaign, because she made her marriage and her husband the most prominent part of the middle of her campaign, and because she threatens to identify the Democrats entirely with poor, uneducated, older white working class voters.

The future of the Democratic party isn't to hand educated young professionals over to Arnold Schwarzenegger's remodeled GOP.

Nancy Pelosi didn't campaign for speaker based on gender. She campaigned on her strength as a fundraiser for new Democratic members of Congress.

As for Republican women, I haven't been able to find recent polling on their stance on the war in Iraq or the threatened obliteration of Iran. Older statistics indicate that they were moving away from Bush-Cheney.

War and recession are not good for women. And I am conventional enough to believe that women of both parties are more in danger from recession than men.


Posted by Carol Mullen, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 21, 2008 at 2:18 pm

How is Hillary against a political interest?, and most women aren't that stupid

I only know for sure about Pennsylvania, where I have family, but Republican women registered Democratic to vote for Hillary Clinton.

McCain's lack of knowledge and/or interest in economics seems very dangerous at a time of recession. Our tax policy, his tax policy, makes us dependent upon borrowing abroad, depreciating our currency. I don't think we can borrow much more for war. It's possible that we could borrow for infrastructure repair.

I think the Republican party chose McCain as a payback, and a willing sacrifice, at a time when they didn't foresee that the Democrats might be in a demolition derby.


Posted by Carol Mullen, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 21, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Senators Snowe, Collins, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson won with support from women of both parties. I haven't followed House contests. Pelosi is such an important politician, and she's local. I do think she broke an important glass ceiling. I hope that she has some sense of the economic urgency of investing in infrastructure.

I don't like Hillary Clinton's health policy. I think it's DOA, forcing poor people to pay insurance premiums. She has a terribly bureaucratic mind.

Obama's is really not sketched in, because he is looking for input from a non-partisan group from the National Academy of Sciences. (The Institute of Medicine) Our health insurance policy is a drag on industry as well as a failure for individuals.

It degrades critical things like medical education, diagnosis, and coordination of care in favor of devices, equipment, and major campaign contributors.


Posted by Jane, a resident of Professorville
on May 21, 2008 at 3:46 pm



Sir George Bernard Shaw once said, "If you can't hide the skeleton in your closet, then you'd better learn how to make him dance."
Democrats and their enablers in the liberal media would like nothing better than to hide their embarrassing racial skeletons as they are on the verge of nominating the first black man ever to make a serious bid for the White House.
Reminding me of this, was watching my friend Paul Begala and Donna Brazile mix it up on CNN recently over Hillary's Clinton's blatant pursuit of white voters in the Democratic primaries.
This comes on the heels of her husband Bill also making open appeals to white voters.

Begala said he did not want to be in a party with "liberal eggheads and African Americans."

The mind reels at the grief Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Mark Levin would bring down on themselves if any were to utter a similar phrase


Posted by sally, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 21, 2008 at 4:18 pm



HR Clinton will be the Al Gore of the Democratic primaries: the winner of the popular vote who lost the election.
But unlike Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential race because of the constitutional requirements of the Electoral College, Clinton will lose because of the Democratic party's arcane — and changeable — rules of delegate allocation.
For example, Clinton won Texas in the sense that most of us understand winning an election, but Obama ultimately walked away with more delegates, because of the party's idiosyncratic allocation process.


Posted by mike w b, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on May 21, 2008 at 4:28 pm



Gallup has this poll Web Link today with some interesting news on both race and gender in the presidential contest.

Not surprisingly, Gallup's most recent poll shows Obama's continued weakness among white voters, not only overall, but within certain key subgroups.

For example, the survey shows McCain leading among whites overall by 15 points against Obama, but only holding a 9-point edge over Clinton if she were the Democratic nominee.

Both Obama and Clinton's deficits balloon among white males in a match-up against McCain.

Gallup reports both Democrats trail the Arizona Senator within this group by a whopping 21 points (57%-36%).

But it's among white women where the Obama and Clinton supporters diverge in a head-to-head contest with McCain.
The Arizona Senator leads among white women by 16 points (51%-35%) against Obama.
Yet against Senator Clinton, McCain merely ties at 46%-46%.

It's ironic that a candidate such as Obama -- whose rhetoric and strategy relies so much on building unity -- generates such stark racial cleavages among Americans.


Posted by Carol Mullen, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 21, 2008 at 4:38 pm

She oversimplifies that issue to the point of dishonesty. 400,000 Democrats in Michigan voted against Hillary Clinton, although hers was the only name on the ballot. That's a lot of negative input.

She only wants to count the votes she got, because she failed to keep her promise to take her name off the ballot. All the other candidates kept their promise. Michigan might have gone for Edwards.

If this primary results in dumping superdelegates, that would be progress. If it results in electoral reform, that would be real progress. Where there were only caucuses, Clinton is playing air guitar. Probably Obama would have won the primary in Iowa. Clinton came in third.

If she agreed to the rules, in fact, she helped to set them, because she thought they would work for her. She only wanted to break them when she bombed.

As for Kentucky, about 40% of Democrats voted against Kerry, against Gore. The state has been moving redder and redder each year. No one asked in the exit polls whether Clinton voters would go for McCain.

It's an anomaly in the Democratic Party that they have delegates from places not able to vote in the General Election.


Posted by Carol Mullen, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 21, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Hillary Clinton has strong support because she's a woman. She has strong opposition because she's a Clinton. Anything goes to hold on to power. They are reckless and destructive to their own party when their power is in doubt.

Many, many Democrats don't want Bill Clinton back in the White House. As for Republicans - perhaps Republican women will cross party lines.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 21, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Carole Mullen,

This one should, by most standard metrics, be in the fold for the Dems. However, you seem to express some fears, thus your defensive posts. The Dems just can't seem to contain themselves (circular firing squads are common).

McCain is the real underdog. If he is to have a chance, he will need to fight his way out, by staying the course in Iraq, rejecting confiscatory taxes, promoting the proven record of supply side (capitalist) economics, controlling the border, supporting indivdual gun rights, expecting individual freedom to be balanced by individual responsibility, supporting domestic oil/nuclear development...etc.

McCain's trump card should be $10/gal gasoline. The lower middle class will be made poor, if this happens. The middle class will drop to lower middle class, etc. This energy cost issue is squarely on the Dems, becasue they refused to develop our own resources. Unfortunately, from my viewpoint, McCain, the old warrior, will probably be too weak to face the obvious. I find that to be a sad thing, but he seems to have chosen that position.

Reagan was not too old to fight, but McCain seems to be.


Posted by mike w b, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on May 21, 2008 at 5:29 pm



Data reported yesterday by Rasmussen Reports suggest that Americans know we are more likely to succeed in Iraq if John McCain is President, but they may not care.

By 49% to 42%, respondents say it is "likely is it that the U.S. would win the War in Iraq if McCain is elected president."
Conversely, only 20% think that if Obama is elected, we are likely to succeed.
There's a campaign theme for you:
a vote for Obama is a vote for failure!


Posted by war is better than no war sometimes, a resident of Midtown
on May 21, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Carol, I have news for you. War is not good for anyone, man or woman..but it is better than no war if no war means generations of submission to dictatorship.

Was war good for South Korean women? No. But,for the generations of women since S. Korea was freed, I would venture a guess that most would say it was better than not having war, given the results of no more war in N. Vietnam on N. Vietnamese women.

I would take war now and freedom for my children any day over no war now and dictatorship for my kids.

Saying "war is not good for women" is simply an absurd statement.


Posted by Whites have a problem with race, a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on May 21, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Whites have a problem with anyone and everyone who is not white. It's a national problem.


Posted by white, a resident of Midtown
on May 22, 2008 at 7:52 am

The only problem whites have with anyone of other colors is when other colors make racist statements about whites. yup....I guess that is a problem, and getting worse thanks to the focus on race and gender, not issues and experience, in the Democrat primaries.

We can thank the third major and furthest left party in our nation, the media, for increasing racism and sexism in this country.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Scottís Seafood Mountain View to close, reopen as new concept
By Elena Kadvany | 7 comments | 2,744 views

Who Says Kids Donít Eat Vegetables?
By Laura Stec | 7 comments | 1,498 views

Breastfeeding Tips
By Jessica T | 10 comments | 1,451 views

How Bad Policy Happens
By Douglas Moran | 12 comments | 797 views

The life of Zarf
By Sally Torbey | 4 comments | 226 views