comment #1

Michael says ...

The right wing talk-backers on HE can spew their usual diseased crap, but when people say they prefer this or that candidate because of any number of factors, fine. Voting record,s loyalties, character issues, intellectual capacity, whatever. But when it all boils down to one thing -- when they say "I won't vote for candidate A because of the tint of his skin and the shape of his nose and the suspected allegiances that we associate with people of his sort," that's simply evil.

Who among the right-wing here (and I guess I'm part of that even though I'm voting for Obama) has said otherwise? Of course, you know, the people they are talking about in your article are Dems, for the most part.

comment #2

Michael says ...

And this doesn't excuse the racism aspect of who to vote for at all, but the people of Dearborn are currently being barraged with the massive disgrace that is Kwame Kilpatrick right now...that may be an influence in the responses there.

comment #3

Sax says ...

Sorry, Jeff, but people throw around the word 'evil' a little too easily these days. Dick Cheney is evil. The average working class joe who feels uncomfortable with an African American in the White House (and even with the term "African American") is just ignorant sad and pathetic, a victim of his upbringing, of the conditioning he got as a little kid. Some Pope (Now we're talking evil) once said "Give them to me for the first five years and I'll have them for the rest of their lives." A brainwashed guy without the native intelligence or education to fight back isn't evil. I've workled with people like this, and still do, every day. Much of what they say (and obviously feel sincerely) makes my skin crawl. I used to engage them in arguments, but soon saw it was futile. The problem for the labeller is that these 'evil' people are working mothers, community leaders who actually do good work; generous, thoughtful people capable of surprising moments of grace.
I can onky hope that seeing past Obama's skin color will be one of them.

comment #4

Walter Sobchak says ...

George Will, (yeah, I know, he's an evil right-winger, so clamp your hands over your ears and go "nanananana-I'm-not-listening") said something several weeks ago that I think could be true. He pointed out that he truly believes for every person who doesn't vote for Obama simply because he's black three or four people WILL vote for Obama simply because he's black.

He spoke of how wonderful it is, (there's that crazy Reagan-esque optimism again!), that here in the year 2008 an African-American is one of two major candidates for President of the United States.

It's kind of a cool thing, no? Will did state that he will not be able to vote for Obama because of their political differences nor will I be able to (obviously).

Obama has pulled off a remarkable campaign and is a truly impressive guy, but I don't think he would make a better president than John McCain.

Believe it or not, a lot of people are going to vote for McCain for that same reason.

I think it's kind of sick how many on the left are taking moral hostages in this election. (Vote for our guy or you're a racist, close-minded bigot!)

But there I go spewing my usual diseased crap again.

comment #5

DarthCorleone says ...

Sax>> Very well said, although I would say that I think Mr. Wells is painting racism itself as evil much moreso than he is painting the racists themselves in this piece.

He pointed out that he truly believes for every person who doesn't vote for Obama simply because he's black three or four people WILL vote for Obama simply because he's black.

I'm not saying the latter category doesn't exist, but there is no way that they outnumber the former category, much less by a ratio of three or four to one. There's just no way.

comment #6

Teacher's Pets says ...

Nice sentiment, Sobchak, but I seriously doubt he'll get three shallow pro-black votes for every shallow anti-black vote. Nice thought, though.

By the way, under-25s voted in record numbers in 2004, no? They were just counterbalanced by the evangelical over-25s bussed to polling stations across the Bible belt...

comment #7

Rev. Slappy says ...

Just a thought about looking at one's self in the mirror: Apparently an assassination attempt has been foiled in Denver. Apparently some idiotic yahoos were going to try and kill Obama on Thursday night because they believe blacks shouldn't be allowed to hold public office. If you take a look at these people's mugshots you see some complete and utter dirtbags -- people who somehow found their way out of the trailer park and into Dener. Will this incident be a look in the mirror for white Americans who won't vote for Barack because he is black? Will this be any sort of a realization that their attitude towards him lump them in with these potential assassins?

comment #8

Gordie Lachance says ...

Sorry Jeff, but there's no difference between diving people up into White Skin vs. Black Skin, Red State vs. Blue State or High Thread Count vs. Low..............prejudice is prejudice.

The fact that you think that your biases are somehow different or less harmful is the core of what's wrong with american politics and religion. So is the hypocrisy.

comment #9

Chapman Carruthers says ...

George Swill is a pretty bold man. Who are these "three to four people" that are standing on the opposite scale from Joe Racist? Are these other white people, who are so enamored with Obama's Denzel-like looks that they'll vote Democrat, simply for that reason? Are we talking Hawaiians? Native Americans?

Look at the demographic breakdown of the US, circa 2006:

Total Population: 299 million
Whiteys: 221.3 million
Black: 40.9 million
Native American: 2.0 million
Asian American: 13.1 million
Hawaiian: 0.43 million
Other: 19 million

Where are these people coming from? Are they the 40.9 million blacks, who are, in effect, counterbalancing 10.0 million racists from other categories?

It seems like Will is either assuming there are an insignificant number of racists in this country or that a large proportion of white america is pining for a black leader, simply because he's black. Both seem pretty preposterous.

comment #10

Walter Sobchak says ...

I don't think G. Will's guess is based on every person asked. I think what he meant was, and surely is plausible, people who ordinarily would not bother to vote at all will go out and vote for Obama because they are excited by the idea of an African-American becoming President.

Conversely, many who are uncomfortable with Obama's skin color (including many Southern Democrats, that's right kids, Southern Democrats), won't even show up at the polls, much less vote for McCain instead.

comment #11

Rich S. says ...

Only marginally related to the subject at hand, but why isn't Thriller on DVD? The few VHS episodes I had are worn out and the bootleg stuff online isn't worth a damn.

comment #12

Walter Sobchak says ...

"George Swill"? Really?

Because you disagree with him politically, I guess? He ain't exactly Rush or Coulter.

He's smarter than you are.

comment #13

Rev. Slappy says ...

Chapman: According to your stats there are not Latinos in America.

comment #14

Three says ...

"Sorry Jeff, but there's no difference between diving people up into White Skin vs. Black Skin, Red State vs. Blue State or High Thread Count vs. Low..............prejudice is prejudice."

No, Gordie, there's a big difference. Prejudice based upon immutable characteristics -- skin color, gender, sexual preference -- is not based upon any qualities that a person can control. Prejudice based upon whether one is a Democrat, or upon choices an individual makes, are (or can be) based upon the merits of that particular choice. They are, in fact, at the core of political choice.

There is no moral equivalency between racism and discrimination based upon personal choices. NOr does this reflect hypocrisy. We should be judged and compared on our choices and individual actions.

comment #15

Walter Sobchak says ...

Another thought....

If Obama loses, won't it be on Democrats?

It's agreed that the country is pretty much 50/50 politically based on the last couple of elections.

It goes to reason that a Republican will vote for McCain not because McCain's white and the other guy's black, but because he's the Republican candidate.

If Obama doesn't win, or loses by a large-ish margin, won't it be because Democrats aren't turing out for him?

comment #16

Edward says ...

It's not only the race card, but also the Muslim card that will keep people from voting for Obama. Check out this from Portland Oregon's Willamette Week; Connie Pashall 56 Independent -- A supporter of President Clinton during the 1990s, Pashall admits that conservative websites have given her pause about Obama’s heritage. “If there’s anything to his Muslim background, then we’d have al-Qaeda working on our country from the top-down.”

I guess she's too busy with the wacko websites to read anything truthful.

Here's the URL for the whole article on why some people won't be voting for Obama.

http://wweek.com/editorial/3441/11405/

comment #17

BurmaShave says ...

Even Dick Cheney isn't evil. He just does evil, and it follows after you and yadda yadda. I spent too many years growing up watching him buy apples at the Gourmet Giant to ever think of him as Herman Goering.

comment #18

Gordie Lachance says ...

Oh, I get it now, Three. Thanks for straightening it out.

So when Jeff refers to people as "lunchbucket" Americans, it's not prejudice because they CHOOSE not to eat their mid-day meals in resturants.

For a minute there I thought he was dismissing a whole segment of middle America while looking down his nose at them.

It's so great to have such intelligent posters like you around to parse semantics.

comment #19

SaveFarris says ...

Any momentum Obama had with the Youth vote became seriously stagnated with the Biden VP pick. Just like Clinton did with Gore, Obama needed to pick someone that would re-emphasize his "Hope and Change" message. Instead, he picked one of the few old, white guys who's been in Washington even longer than McCain!

These warning signs (Barack not being able to seal the deal with middle-class voters) have been around since at least March. You're just NOW noticing them?

comment #20

Griff says ...

Uh...if we did a story, anecdotal and all, about people of color who won't vote for McCain because he's on the pasty white side...would they be racist, as well? Or is this another one of those stories where you can only be racist if you're, you know, white.

comment #21

DarthCorleone says ...

Walter Sobchak>> No, I don't think that follows. I would think the breakdown is more along the lines of 40/40/20, with the 20 being the voters who don't immediately identify with either party. As always, it's the way that those 20 percent bend that will determine the election.

comment #22

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Walter: Very keen observation, even if it assumes that I'm not Paul Ehrlich, Charles Beard, Cornel West, or a million other people whose names I don't have the time to immortalize. Including my own.

It also depends on how you define intelligence. Maybe in your circle George Will is a very intelligence man. And this very intelligent man didn't make an uncharacteristically stupid statement. Despite it all, I still don't find his perceptions about race and politics to hold much water. And my personal feelings about Will? Well, I'll leave that to Cosmo Kramer:

Jerry: "No ,Elaine and I we're just discussing whether I could admit a man is attractive."

Kramer: " Hmm! Oh! Yeah. I'll tell you who is an attractive man; Gorge Will."

Jerry: "Really!"

Kramer: "Yeah! He has clean looks, scrubbed and shampooed and...."

Elaine: "He's smart...."

Kramer: "No, no I don't find him all that bright."

comment #23

Walter Sobchak says ...

Don't Agree With Someone = Stupid

I see.

comment #24

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Edward: I was sort of hoping you would link to a story from the Mercury, instead.

Despite being one of the more progressive cities around, take a stroll down NW23rd and you'll see that a bevy of Portlanders have no clue about other cultures. You say Muslim and they stiffen, and grab onto their purses with their free hand (the one not holding the latte). You could tell them that Mayor-elect Sam Adams is a devout muslim, and operates an opium factory with the aid of Pashtun workers in southeast Afghanistan, and they'd probably believe it and demand a recount of the votes in the Mayoral race.

comment #25

gansibele says ...

Three, the notion of skin color being immutable and therefore the poor victim of racism can't do anything about it, etc; it's a fallacy. If it were true, logically it would follow that if blacks could change their skin color, racism would disappear, which is obviously stupid.

Homophobes don't agree with you that sexual preference is a choice, so they justify their prejudice using the same fallacy. And where's the "choice" in being poor (not being able to afford high-thread count clothing) or less educated? For millions of people those are an immutable reality. How is it less prejudiced to rue everyday that those people have a vote, at the box office and at the ballot box?

Racism is not a product of skin color per se, it's a historical and cultural product manifested in discrimination. Maybe is not equivalent quantitatively because it has had a longer and vastly more pronounced effect on our society but qualitatively -that is, for the victims- the damage is the same.

comment #26

Ghost072 says ...

"It goes to reason that a Republican will vote for McCain not because McCain's white and the other guy's black, but because he's the Republican candidate.

If Obama doesn't win, or loses by a large-ish margin, won't it be because Democrats aren't turing out for him?"

Yes, that is absolutely true, but that doesn't mean that a lot of independent voters and Republican voters aren't thinking the same thing. Just today, I received an email from an aquaintance that had a photoshopped picture of Air Force One, only the "Air Force" was replaced with "Water Melon."

The list of people on this email had numerous people on it that I know to be Democrats, Independents and Republicans and yet no one said a word before I responded angrily. The irony of this email is that it was titled "Not PC." I guess "Not PC" stands for "blatantly racist."

comment #27

MattyC says ...

Chapman Carruthers:

I'm gonna guess you either live in Tacoma or the 'Couve, and have some deep-seeded jealousy issues going on, cause there's no other reason to make Portland out to be some hinterland, with locals fearfully clutching their purses.

What the fuck are you talking about?!?

Did you have a random conversation with one weird soccer mom, and extrapolate that into some half-cocked theory about Portlanders?

comment #28

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Nope. Live on 23rd. Love the city, just reinforcing the point that this stuff exists everywhere, and the notion that Obama is benefiting from his race and/or commonly-held beliefs about his religion seem pretty far-fetched.

comment #29

MattyC says ...

Sorry, dude, but that doesn't fly.

Unless you had some specific interaction to relay, then you're just spraying unverifiable bullshit into the ethos.

Just because you live here doesn't give you the right to paint a swath of people a certain way so you can make some vague point.

May I ask if you're from Portland originally?

comment #30

Richardson says ...

"We certainly found out what the youth vote is worth in '04. That's why we call them the Generation of Shame 'round these parts."

That's funny, Jeff -- I would think somebody such as you had learned long ago not to trust the "youth vote" in any presidential election.As I recall, the Youth loved McGovern significantly more than anybody ever loved John Kerry.

Quick, everybody, what's a much, much, much stronger word than Shame to describe Jeff's generation?

comment #31

Richardson says ...

"He spoke of how wonderful it is, (there's that crazy Reagan-esque optimism again!), that here in the year 2008 an African-American is one of two major candidates for President of the United States."

What I think is crazy is that Democrats genuinely believe that an African American [or, for that matter, a woman] will actually be elected the first time out of the gate. That would be kind of unprecedented, wouldn't it? First one has to fail, so that their very attempt can prove to be inspirational to the next generation.

comment #32

Richardson says ...

"He pointed out that he truly believes for every person who doesn't vote for Obama simply because he's black three or four people WILL vote for Obama simply because he's black. He spoke of how wonderful it is, that here in the year 2008 an African-American is one of two major candidates for President of the United States."

That's awesome. So, if he loses, Democrats will blame his race. If he wins, Republicans will blame his race.

Both sides are willing to completely ignore all the substance that makes the man, all the political games he has mastered, etc., and focus solely on his race as the only defining issue of the entire campaign.

You'll have to forgive me, Walter, if I don't see that as a huge step forward.

comment #33

iamanerd says ...

I think race for Obama and age for McCain will be issues during the election. I teach college in the South, outside Atlanta, and I'm seeing a similar reaction to McCain by young, white voters that I saw concerning Bob Dole in 1996: even those who come across as quite conservative or traditionally Republican have expressed some hesitation about towing the party line. They have that "old guy" or "voting for my dad" mentality about McCain. My students are sometimes young enough to have parents not old enough to have served in Vietnam. That piece of history is so very foggy in their minds that it doesn't help McCain.

They also have felt first hand the increases in tuition during Bush's terms, shrinking jobs (this is a technical college), and a major housing crunch. They see Obama and see black, sure, but they see change. McCain, old and white as he is, represents a nice place to stick blame for many young people.

On the other hand, I've had some pretty blatant racism on paper in the writing classes I teach concerning Obama. And this is from Republicans and Democrats. I think the idea that southern Democrats will be out in force for Obama is foolish to say the least. The ones who said they couldn't vote for Clinton because she's a woman now say things like they cannot vote for Obama because he is black. Old ways just don't die hard around these parts; some are hanging on strong.

The one no one seems to have really brought up is the Hispanic reaction to Obama's race not being too promising come November. Not all minorities get along, fyi. I think he is in some serious trouble with minority voters who aren't black.

comment #34

Chapman Carruthers says ...

How tiresome.

An angry poster that starts a response with the word 'dude.' So novel. I get the impression from your tone, we're really not dudes at all, so why use it as a greeting?

And 'unverifiable bullshit?' Have you not read the rest of the comments in this thread? How about the italicized text in comment one? Or comment 4? Everyone has a reason for saying what they do. Are blogs really the place where we lay down all the evidence for what we post so some random won't intentionally read comments out-of-context and get offended? Would it help if I described a conversation I overheard yesterday between two early twenty-somethings at Mio Sushi which centered around the nationality of Obama's father and how they thought that was weird, and, like, in some way uncivilized. I get the feeling you either won't believe that, or waft it away as an outlier that doesn't truly describe your fair city.

And swath? A word that has no measurement to it, and yet you seem to think that swath should mean the greater metropolitan area, even though I described the pedestrians on one city street. Do you even understand the reason why I chose Nw23rd to begin with (versus Ladds, Freemont, Alberta Arts or somewhere else)? Seriously, do you? or is this just an opportunity for you to stomp and kick, and say dude, and show your indignation. We get it. I offended you. You're offended. I'm an ass. Moving on.

>>>May I ask if you're from Portland originally?

Beautiful, a question with no right answer. If I'm from Portland then I have no perspective of how good I have it. If I'm not, then I'm speaking about people I can't possibly know.

Here's the answer, and have at it. I expect your response to be prideful and condescending. Born in Portland. Returned to Portland two years ago. In the interim I lived in Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, England, Bhutan, Texas, Rhode Island, California, Kansas, Washington, Minnesota, and New Mexico.

comment #35

BurmaShave says ...

Chapman, I assume you're using statistics that don't classify Hispanic/Latino as a race and spread them out among other races? Technically true, but that ruffles a lot of feathers.

comment #36

Chapman Carruthers says ...

My bad BurmS. Copied the data straight from the US Census website and pasted it without giving it a second thought.

comment #37

buster says ...

"The generation of shame" ... you mean the kids distilled with the spirit of their boomer parents?

I'm a later Gen-X'er (the last group to grow up playing outside and calling for my friends by ringing their door bell instead of IM'ing or texting them), so I have no stake in defending either generation.

But it seems like you spend a lot of time complaining Jeff, and not a lot of time solving anything. When it comes down to it your generation has a lot more to answer for than complain about. You are much more accountable to the "generation of shame" than they are to you.

Trans-national hyper-consumerism, gauche materialism, muslim extremism, a negative return on social security, crippling medicare/medicaid debts ... on and on ... these are things that came to be while boomers have been in power and that the "generation of shame" will inherit.

Don't blame the kids....they've never been in a position of power. You're mad because they didn't bail you out...they didn't come out to take a step toward cleaning up your mess. Failing to come out to vote for Kerry (who, let's face it, was a big wet blanket anyway) pales in comparison to the awful way boomers have shaped the culture of this country over the last twenty years.

comment #38

Richardson says ...

I'm just old enough to not be part of the "Generation of Shame" and just young enough to wish feel like I *should* be part of the Youth Vote.

comment #39

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Excellent post, Buster.

comment #40

MattyC says ...

I'm not sure how after that rant, you can classify me as the angry poster.

Basically, it sounds like you're just annoyed that I called you out for your non-specific Political Urban Legend, even though I really just made your story far more interesting by asking for details.

I'm from Portland, and have lived elsewhere as well, so no bone to pick with you there.

Whatever, I'm gonna go have a life now...

comment #41

D.Z. says ...

Walter: "Obama has pulled off a remarkable campaign and is a truly impressive guy, but I don't think he would make a better president than John McCain."

Yes, we get it. Obama doesn't have the experience of using his rich wife to get elected.

Farris: "Any momentum Obama had with the Youth vote became seriously stagnated with the Biden VP pick. Just like Clinton did with Gore, Obama needed to pick someone that would re-emphasize his "Hope and Change" message. Instead, he picked one of the few old, white guys who's been in Washington even longer than McCain!"

Considering Biden is younger than McCain, he does have youth appeal!

Richardson: "That's funny, Jeff -- I would think somebody such as you had learned long ago not to trust the "youth vote" in any presidential election.As I recall, the Youth loved McGovern significantly more than anybody ever loved John Kerry."

It's not their fault the ex-youth known as Boomers started selling them out around that time.

"What I think is crazy is that Democrats genuinely believe that an African American [or, for that matter, a woman] will actually be elected the first time out of the gate. That would be kind of unprecedented, wouldn't it? First one has to fail, so that their very attempt can prove to be inspirational to the next generation."

He's not the first one running for President.

iamanerd: "The one no one seems to have really brought up is the Hispanic reaction to Obama's race not being too promising come November. Not all minorities get along, fyi. I think he is in some serious trouble with minority voters who aren't black."

Perhaps, but McCain doesn't seem to have a consistent message on immigration.

comment #42

Richardson says ...

"He's not the first one running for President."

Don't get into your stupid semantic bullshit, DZ, he's the first "major party" candidate, the first to have an actual shot.

comment #43

QQPPPP says ...

I saw the related news about it at interracial dating for blacks&whites @@@@@@@@@ mixedcupid .com'. Many sexy girls with nice videos are discussing it

That's funny . LMAOOOOOOOOOO

comment #44

dixiedugan says ...

As you all know by now I live here in the Midwest, in Illinois. People I know, and there's a whole damn lot of them in various walks of life and I've never heard any of them bring up what race Obama is, nor have I heard anything about him being considered a Muslim. Nothing.

BTW - good post Buster. I agree.

comment #45

mrbill says ...

"while boomers have been in power"

Baby Boomer-
Baby boomer is a term used to describe a person who was born during the Post-World War II baby boom between 1946 and 1965.
Births began to decline from the peak in 1957 (4,300,000) until a sharp decline from 1964 (4,027,490) to 1965 (3,760,358).
Barack Obama -Born August 4, 1961 Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.

Social Security-
The National Commission on Social Security Reform (NCSSR), chaired by Alan Greenspan, was empaneled to investigate the long-run solvency of Social Security.The largest demographic paying into the system (baby boomers) faced insolvency.Under the 1983 amendments to Social Security, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a previously-enacted increase in the payroll tax rate was accelerated, additional employees were added to the system, the full-benefit retirement age was slowly increased, and up to one-half of the value of the Social Security benefit was made potentially taxable income.
As a result of these changes, particularly the tax increases, the Social Security system began to generate a large short-term surplus of funds, intended to cover the added retirement costs of the "baby boomers".There has been significant disagreement over whether the Social Security Trust Fund has been saved, or has been used to finance other government programs and other tax cuts.
Average baby boomer age in 1983 - 26

Medicare-
Medicare was added by the Social Security Act of 1965.
Average baby boomer age in 1965 - 8.