Posted on 05/08/2008 1:54:24 PM PDT by beacon street bandit
In the wake of Obama’s struggle with securing white blue-collar voters of the Democratic Party, many left wing commentators as well as some mainstream media journalists, have found particular solace in explaining his lack of appeal to certain segments of what was once the bedrock coalition of the party, as a result of either explicit or implicit racism. We have all heard the conspiratorial and hidden message refrains: any attempt to get out and secure the blue-collar white vote is blowing the “race” dog-whistle; arguments about Obama’s “electability” are, at root, code words for the country is not ready to elect a black man president.
The New York Times John Harwood argues that part of the problem related to divisions within the party rests with the rules changes adopted by the Democratic Party itself during the McGovern candidacy:
Mr. McGovern became the Democratic standard-bearer in 1972. But the party’s new approach to the nominating process helped label Democrats as catering to their component parts rather than the broad electorate. “The idea of quotas, the concept itself which McGovern supported, was to be one of the major factors in the wrecking of his campaign,” Theodore H. White wrote in his book “The Making of the President 1972.” Mr. White saw this change as a profound ideological reordering. “The beautiful Liberal Idea of the previous half-century,” he observed, “had grown old and hardened into a Liberal Theology which terrified millions of its old clients.” That theology was dominated, in part, by what would come to be known as “identity politics.”
While this in part, explains the phenomenon of the discrete tribalism that seems to have reared its head in the recent primary contests (i.e, god and guns Democrats resistant to Obama’s latte-liberal message), it doesn’t squarely address the blue-collar white voter
(Excerpt) Read more at beaconstreetjournal.com ...
Does racism lurk behind every black vote for Obama?
Shhhhhhhhhhhhush
that’s the whole point of my article…
When whites vote for Hillary because she’s white, they’re racist. When blacks vote for BO because he’s black, they’re...
Oh! I forgot. Minorities can’t be considered racist for any reason since they are minorities.
I forgot my Democrat Newthink.
Absolutely, the left will attempt to “guilt” everyone into voting Obama with the assertion or implication that if you don’t vote for him, you’re a closet racist.
What you say is sad, but true…
IMO that line of though accounts for 66-85% of BHO's & HRC's respective votes this season.
The dhimmirats have intentionally trained their constituencies to believe that they are all part of some victimized group that has to stick together to fight some outside group that wants to oppress them.
so, is BHO's voters motivated more by ethnic pride or victimization, such as Black Liberation Theology?
Just maybe blue collar whites don’t want to vote for a black man who attended a church where hate of white people and our country is expressed vehemently. Obama’s message says one thing, his associations with Wright and Ayers says another. Add to that the remarks of his wife. Just maybe they don’t want to fall for the old bait and switch.
Agreed…
Obama , the “post-racial candidate” has not offered a satisfactory explanation for why he voluntarily associated with a church and pastor who don’t have nice things to say about white people.
“Does racism lurk behind every blue collar vote for Hillary?”
Since 92% of black votes in North Carolina voted for Barrack Obama, shouldn’t that headline question be, ‘Does racism lurk behind every black vote for Barrack Obama?’
IMO the quote in post #8 concurs
I prefer Barack to Hilary, because Barack is a man albeit a liberal girly-guy, he at least has the asset of logic and we can work with that.
Yours truly,
The Woim
Additionally, the white blue collar workers generally have “skill jobs”, which means they are more likely to have a HS education, GED or military experience. They may also resent people who degrade them (HRC does the same thing).
As opposed to Katrina types who have spent their lives on welfare, at least since the war on poverty began under LBJ.
now this is rich!
hillary leads among white men without college educations
and gay men.
go figure.
Good point…
If she wins - yes. If she loses - no.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.