Category Archives: black vote

>LMAO Say What?

>I had to break out in that special laughter of disbelief when I read the recent offering by Chicago Tribune columnist Dawn Turner Trice. Okay. I will first tell you what she wrote, and see if you catch the line that produce the guffaws in me – and a number of others with whom I shared the column without any hint of my reaction. Here goes.

“(Sarah) Palin is only attractive to women (and men) who appreciate her conservative views; her life-time membership in the NRA; and her anti-abortion stance. But she’s not fooling women who don’t. Women aren’t just blindly going to vote for a sister. Just like blacks won’t blindly vote for a brother.”

Say what?

I don’t even think I had to add my own emphasis to the last two (almost) sentences for anyone to get it.

According to polls, Barack Obama is getting close to 95 percent of the black vote. This is not issue driven. This is racism in action. They ARE voting “blindly” for a brother. The black vote is an extreme example of what Trice claims is not even happening.

As a secondary note, you will see that Trice’s main point is her belief that those supporting Palin are only those who agree with her. Duh! Now there’s a startling piece of insight.

>REACT: Missing the point in Mississippi

>As expected, Barack Obama cruised to an easy victory in the Mississippi Democrat primary, picking up about 20 of the states 33 delegates, with the remainder going to Hillary.

His victory, however, is more evidence that he will be an extreme underdog in the General Election. Mississippi has the highest percentage of African-Americans of any state in the nation. They represented and overwhelming 70 percent of the voters in the Democrat primary. They gave Obama more than 90 percent of their votes as an expression of racial solidarity. (Dare we call it racism?) Conversely, Hillary took the vast majority of white votes. (Dare we call it ethnic pride?)

And yes. There is irony in the fact that the Mississippi flag (pictured) incorproates the old confederate “stars and bars.” Even more so when you consider that a new flag proposal was soundly defeated by two-thrids of the voters in 2001. That referendum could foretell Obama’s future in a general election. His impressive victory in the Democrat primary may be counterintuitive in terms of November.

Whatever you call it, racial voting has floated Obama’s campaign to the top – and it will sink it in a general election if he is the Democrat standard bearer.

As I have previously written, as soon as Obama picked up the racial cudgel in South Carolina, he began to position his campaign on the great American racial fault line. Race — not the audacity of hope or the promise of change in the White House, other than skin color — is the underlying defining issue.

It is not unheard of for a candidate to do what is necessary to win a nomination, only to find the winning formula in the primary is a receipe for defeat in the general. Obama finds himself in that position. After running as the son of his father in the primaries, can he run as the son of his mother in the General Election? That takes a lot of hope — and more change than one can believe in.

Footnote: I have been hearing a lot of my conservative compatriots a’hopin’ and a’prayin’ for a Clinton nomination in the belief that she is the more beatable of the two candidates. I disagree. Without a monumental disaster in the McCain camp – never to be discounted —
I think Obama is predestined to be an also-ran. I think it is dangerous to underestimate the Clintons, just as the Democrats always underestimated Ronald Reagan when they were a’hopin’ and a’prayin’ that he would be the opposing candidate.