In one of those delicious ironies of history, it is the Democrat Left, the arbiters of politically correct speech and diversity who have virtually split along racial lines.
Senator Hillary Clinton made a simple remark to an interviewer in New Hampshire to the effect that "Martin Luther King's dream became a reality when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964..."
Of course, she meant something much deeper than that as revealed in her later remarks, and those of her husband.What she was essentially saying is that speeches and rhetoric were all very well, but it takes a president to get something concrete done, a direct slap at Obama's lack of concrete achievements in public life.
Obama's people then deliberately took that factual comment and distorted its meaning into disrespect for Dr. King, with the subtext that it was `racism' to allow a white politician any credit for fulfilling a black dream.
Of course, the reality is both that civil rights and women's sufferage happened for exactly that reason..because white males willingly gave up some of their power to make it so.
The dispute has essentially split the Democrats along race lines. According to the latest polls, 47% of White Democrat voters now favor Senator Clinton...as opposed to only 16% of black Democrat voters.
While Senator Clinton had her defenders among long time Clintonistas like Charlie Rangel and BET founder Robert Johnson, there's no doubt that a substantial amount of her black support has evaporated, even though Obama, in a deft exercise in plausible deniability went public in an effort to defuse things, saying he didn't consider the comments racially motivated...after the damage had been done.
As smooth a move as this seems, Obama may just have outsmarted himself.
Aside from the fact that many whites, particularly women may rally around Hillary,let's not forget that when it comes to race politics, there's another factor in play. There was an interesting bit in the New York Times today that confirmed something I've known for quite some time - that Barack Obama is going to have problems attracting the Latino vote, no matter how many union members in Nevada he gets to shout si, se puede with him.
In fact, that tactic was deliberately chosen by the Obama campaign in an effort to try and make up some ground in the Latino electorate, a place where they know they're getting clobbered - on racial lines.
In the balkanized world of racial politics, set-asides and quotas the Democrats largely created, blacks and Latinos frequently see themselves as competitors for funding and government jobs.
In Los Angeles neighborhoods like Compton, Inglewood and South Los Angeles that were historically black for years, blacks are fighting a losing battle to retain political power as the neighborhoods change.
Many blacks see Latinos as a bunch of interlopers taking `their jobs' and `their neighborhoods' while many Latinos see blacks the way blacks once saw whites...as the power structure trying to impede them from getting their rightful share of the pie.And as someone who grew up in the mostly Latino neigborhood of East Los Angeles, I can say from personal experience that the racial issue definitely exists on both sides.
So while Obama may have marginalized himself by playing the black race card and courting racists like Al Sharpton, Hillary has been playing the Latino card, using MeCha member and Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as a major part in her campaigning in the hispanic community across the country.That's also what's behind Hillary's championing of driver's licenses for illegal aliens and statements like `no woman is illegal.'
In the end it all comes down to the numbers. Even if Obama gets 75% of the black vote and Senator Clinton gets only 50% or so of the Latino and white vote, Obama will not have the numbers to garner the nomination.After that, in a general election, whomever the Democrat nominee is will likely get a majority of the black vote anyway.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's exactly how Lady Macbeth and Mr. Bill had it figured.
3 comments:
Interesting post. What I wonder is what effect this whole thing will have in the general election? There is the possibility that if Sen. Clinton is the standard bearer, blacks, while still voting Democrat, will not turn out in as big numbers as they would if Sen. Obama was the standard bearer. Then, when you factor in the Latino vote, that leaves me trying to figure out which would be the stronger in the general election.
Since I think Sen. Clinton will get the nomination in the end, I would think this will hurt her within the black community. The question is how much?
Hi Fritz,
I think the black turnout will pretty much be the same in the general wether Hillary or Obama run...and remember, there's always the thought that Obama may run as Veep,although I think, personally that it might end up being Bill Richardson.
There's a real possibility that the Clintons, after cynically using the black vote may have switched and now could be using the Latino vote the same way, realizing that Obama was going to cut into the black pie a bit.
You could very well be right on the black turnout, but I am inclined to think more would turn out if Obama is the candidate. I had not considered it from the standpoint of a Clinton/Obama ticket. Still, it is interesting to think about and try to guess the results. Anyhow, it was a good post and made me think.
Post a Comment