Comments on Obama's Kentucky Problem May Not Be Fixable

Of COURSE ugly fucking bigots should decide who is my president. I'm sorry I forgot about that.

People like this should be shot.

If only Kentucky had held their primary much too early, like Florida & Michigan...

Exactly. Obama doesn't have a problem with white voters or working-class white voters (Iowa, Idaho, Alaska, Utah are pretty white states). He has a problem with racists in Southern and Rust Belt states.

Oh no! We could never win the White House without Kentucky.

I'd be in favor of Civil War Redux, wherein we expel the south from the Union.

I love how the loftiness of the the early Democratic primaries has descended down to the more primitive, base level bullshit left over from a pre-civil rights America. What is it about this country that always drives everything down to the lowest common denominator? How the fuck are race and sex still factors with these fucking hicks. Yeah, that's right, hicks. I'll "condescend" to these fucking pricks.

Like it or not, blacks will vote for Hillary (if she's the nominee) in far greater numbers than people like this will vote for Obama. And there a lot of people like him in this country.

Can we carpet bomb the old Confederacy with nukes? The jet stream should carry the fall out way from the north. I really think we should explore this option. Seriously...Nuke the Confederacy and see if the south rises again.

You're kidding yourself if you think this attitude is limited to the hollars of backwoods Kentucky. A whole lot of folks even here in nice, polite, lily white Washington are stone racists--they've just learned not to wear it on their sleeves.

Honey, Kentucky isn't going to be voting for a Democrat in the general election anyway. The "race war" has been going on in Kentucky for generations, and will continue after we're gone. Kentucky doesn't have enough delegates to make a difference for Hillary, anyway. Also, Obama has proved that he can win over white "working class" voters in IA, MO, MT, etc. Screw Kentucky, they wouldn't vote for Hillary in the general election either.

Honey, Kentucky isn't going to be voting for a Democrat in the general election anyway. The "race war" has been going on in Kentucky for generations, and will continue after we're gone. Kentucky doesn't have enough delegates to make a difference for Hillary, anyway. Also, Obama has proved that he can win over white "working class" voters in IA, MO, MT, etc. Screw Kentucky, they wouldn't vote for Hillary in the general election either.

Honey, Kentucky isn't going to be voting for a Democrat in the general election anyway. The "race war" has been going on in Kentucky for generations, and will continue after we're gone. Kentucky doesn't have enough delegates to make a difference for Hillary, anyway. Also, Obama has proved that he can win over white "working class" voters in IA, MO, MT, etc. Screw Kentucky, they wouldn't vote for Hillary in the general election either.

Both my parents won't vote for Obama for the exact same reason -- they think he'll put too many blacks in power. It's some kind of bizarre fear among racists. They both live in the Seattle area and both support Clinton (and supported John Edwards previously).

Strangely enough, we're all minorities and have experienced plenty of racism around here.

Racists are the most ass-backwards and useless members of our society. Anyone who lacks the ability to shed such a hideous mindset must also lack the cognitive ability to make an informed choice for President.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, even racists have the right to vote.

And I know, I know, "it's that condescending liberal attitude that will cost our party the election", but you know what? I could give a shit. At some point we have to draw the line and say that if you can't move beyond judging people on skin color, you have no place in our society, eat shit and die.

@7, you're deluded if you think Clinton wouldn't face analogous problems. There are also plenty of voters who won't vote for a woman, and plenty more who won't vote specifically for Hillary Clinton. They're not concentrated such that winning is impossible, but I'd say the same about those hopelessly lost if Obama wins - since when do modern Democrats count on the Deep South to win? In the critical areas, the solidly bigoted are offset more by other solidly Democratic populations.

Nobody cares about the racist old guys.

The 21st Century has moved on without them.

Jon Stewart asked him last week if he was planning to enslave the white race. The answer was no.

Why isn't Ryan S. Jackson the news editor at the Stranger?

"...they think he'll put too many blacks in power. It's some kind of bizarre fear among racists."

I don't think this is a bizarre fear-- I think that this is white supremacists afraid that they'll finally get what's coming to them. That after years of prejudice and hatred someone will turn the table and do to them what they did to others. Is this irrational? Yes. Is it racist? Yes. But if I descended from great grandparents that met at a lynching picnic I would be afraid, too.

Going back to Kentucky recently my own mother told me she would not vote for Obama because she thought he was a Muslim...and Osama Bin Laden had warned of this day when a Muslim would occupy the White House.

Meanwhile my Grandmother on my fathers side (a proud lifelong democrat) said she would never vote for Hillary but could not bring herself to vote for a black man. I tried to point out that race shouldn't matter, but she was pretty stuck in her ways.

Anyway, I'm just glad I don't live there anymore.

I doubt HRC or Obama will take kentucky. Kentucky has voted for two democratic candidates since the 60's. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (both times). Both southern white male governors. This is why I think that imagining that Obama or HRC will somehow take a southern red state is a fantasy. It seems that there are simply too many racists, who are still voting. In time maybe enough of these racists will die, to be replaced with less racist voters, but until then, forget it. Therefore if a democratic candidate is to win before the demographics change, we will either have to rely on the rest of the country or try to find a progressive southern white male who won't scare the bigots. I would prefer the former but would take the latter over another four years of Bush. On the other hand neither Gore or Edwards was able to deliver the south. Long term a 50 state approach might work, just because of attrition.

So these people who would NEVER vote for an Africa-American candidate would be just peachy about electing a woman? Probably not. There's just some people that you have to admit that are not going to come over to your side. This is nothing new.

@8 - Yeah, let's nuke an entire section of the country just because of a select group of backward racist idiots. We're not all like that, jackass.

You sound a lot like those rednecks around here you're referring to, actually: "We just need to nuke all them towelhead countries over in the Middle East. They're all terrorists anyhow."

@18

A valid question, and one that I believe you should take up with management.

9: Yes, hicks and bumpkins are sadly a universal phenomenon. In fact, Seattle has a lot of slack-jawed provincial types.

You should mention the fact that he's "half-white". Seriously.

I've noticed it helps racist people reconcile their general fear of supporting blacks with their desire to support Obama specifically. "But he's half-white so it's okay"... Totally fucking bizarre but I'll take the baby step.

Christ. This jackass sounds like a character from The Turner Diaries.

One possible solution - Obama needs to go to places where the hicks congregate and basically talk to him personally. I think it's very risky, but most of them have never talked to a black person in their life. If they have a normal conversation with him talking about their lives and see how he doesn't fit the racist stereotypes they grew up or imbreded with then they'll slowly start to see blacks as normal people like them.

This worked where I came from. I grew up next to this couple who had never really gotten to know black people and had their prejudices against blacks that they kept to themselves. As we became neighbors and good friends, those stereotypes went away as they saw how we lived and got to know us.
----

I'd like to see him talk to white elderly KYians and see how they react to him. I'm sure they'd be fucking surprised as hell to see a black politician wanting to hold a conversation.

Nice reaction. Lets shoot the people we disagree with. Or better yet, nuke them. Very thoughtful, eloquent reactions. Many of the pinheads who comment here are as politically reactionary as the worst right wing scumbags.

Kudos!

@26, you gotta good point. he should make an ad with him and his grandmother in it. that'd work in KY with those racist when they see a WW2 generation white woman with her black grandson.

Don't worry - he'll be so drunk for the Derby tomorrow that he won't even remember having said this.

29: You're sort of exaggerating the number of people here calling for nuclear bombardment of the South.

@29 True, but the general tone of the thread is obnoxious at best. I stand by my original statement.

Mandatory Stranger Link

Hey, @8:

Kentucky wasn't part of the Confederacy. It was a border state that never seceded, even though it was claimed by the Confederacy and public opinion was split.

Though it makes me sad to say it, I think #30's idea is a good one. In this part of the country, one of the "worst" things you can do to your family if you are white is hook up (and, inevitably, have a baby with) an African-American. I bet a lot of these folks would see themselves in Obama's grandmother because a LOT of these types have a child or grandchild who has "run off" and done this...
I'm from rural southern Indiana, and my first job was working with a white woman whose daughter had six kids by 25, four of them with an African-American. My co-worker could not bear to refer to the interracial children as her grandchildren, but she would display pictures of them. As messed up as it all is, I think it would at least *humanize* Obama for this type of person for him to appear with his grandmother.
I actually really love that part of the country. It's so sad that it's changing so slowly. But it is changing.

Hillary's strongest voting block, by far, is the Appalacian vote, which is also one of the most racist parts of the country. They don't like their gays either which may explain why Hillary gladly accepted the statements about her not being a pansy. I'm with those who think the time during which these folks should be looked to to select our president has passed.

@17. yeah, but it was a joke. i think we all know that he really will.

@14:
"At some point we have to draw the line and say that if you can't move beyond judging people on skin color, you have no place in our society, eat shit and die."

THIS ^

5280 @7, you obviously don't know many AAs. My family and friends will NOT vote for Hillary, and neither will I. So, if she is counting on the AA vote to win those crucial swing states, forget it. The anger is real, and time won't heal it. We won't forget!!!

@40, don't fret, 5280 is probably talking from personal experience. There are a lot of them "I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black (wink, wink)..." types here in Colorado. Keep in mind Colorado is the home of Amendment 2 which would have codified discrimination into its constitution. The apples don't fall far from the tree.

Racism is a reality- fact is that there is a hard core 10-15% of American voters who would never vote for a black candidate, no matter what. Fortunately, most of those racist voters would not be counted on by any Democratic candidate. But, as the Packer article and Mike in Iowa @ 37 point out, there are a percentage of Democratic voters, most concentrated in Appalachia, that will never vote for Obama.

Most of these Appalachian racists are in states like Kentucky, Alabama and Georgia. These states are not likely to vote Democratic, even this year. But, there is also a large enough percentage of voters in Tennessee and West Virginia -states that voted for Bill Clinton- that will be lost to Obama. And then there are concentrations of these voters in key swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio (seeing a pattern here?), along with Virginia, which could be a Democratic win this year (and voted overwhelmingly for Obama, except in Appalachia). So, these often Democratic voters in Appalachia and their racist ways are a real challenge to Obama putting together a winning coalition of states in November.

Where I lost any respect for Hillary and her husband is when they decided to start exploiting the kind of racist fear among Appalachian Democratic voters described by Packer in the New Yorker article. Starting in South Carolina, Bill and Hillary clearly decided to exploit racist stereotypes and fears (Jesse Jackson comparisons, darkening images of Obama, Geraldine Ferraro's statements, pics of Obama in African garb, Bill's rural tours, Rev. Wright) to move these voters solidly into Hillary's corner.

What's scary is that this racism is actually fueling talk that it's ok for superdelegates to deliver the nomination to Clinton because, well, we're just not ready to elect a black president (Ed Rendell said this publicly many times).

We, as Democrats, given our country's history, given our party's history, given our aspirations for racial equality should find this completely unacceptable. If Obama has the most pledged delegates after the last primary (and he almost certainly will), the nomination should be his, realities of racism be damned. This is a principle worth losing over, although I don't think that'll be result. In reality, I think it just adds some risk of losing. But, if we're not willing as a country and a party to take that risk, when will we be?

We must take on that racism, stare it down and defeat it. And, what better year to do that than this one. McCain is a flawed candidate (his association with Bush is far more damaging that Obama's association with Rev. Wright) and, in spite of what's happened over the last few weeks, Obama is one of the best candidates this party has ever seen.

We Democrats might be taking on some incremental measure of additional risk of losing the presidency by nominating Obama because racism will be a real factor to overcome. However, Obama is completely capable of winning in the face of that racism. And, we as a nation will be better off for it.

@42, okay, you are way too intelligent for this forum. I appreciate your passion and knowledge, but you are dealing with the likes of me -- a Mastered degreed librarian -- and my lower cousin (5280). You make too much sense and now please stop!

@42"this is a principle worth losing over" you said it.

now the argument FOR Obama is that HE WILL lose.

Greaaaaat.

The rest of the world and our nation and grandchildren will thank us for ensuring we lose against to the GOP. Outting in McCain and giving his VP the leg up on 8 more years making a total of another 12 more years of war in Iraq, bad domestic policy, etc. including by the way:

bad judges who don't fight for equal rights

policies that hurt poor people and minorities the most.

But oh we get to be so high and mighty and liberal and superior it'd be worth it!

What total idiocy.

Please forgive unPC. Brainfart. It happens, they read and they don't want to see.
Love ya, unPc.

@41: Oh, go fuck a penguin. I've been on the Hill since before you were born.

what unPC read:

" "this is a principle worth losing over" you said it. now the argument FOR Obama is that HE WILL lose."

what 42 actually wrote:

"This is a principle worth losing over, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK THAT'LL BE THE RESULT."

just stick to citing meaningless polls, unPC. it's what you do best.

@46, you probably have been on the Hill (for non-Seattle people, Hill means Capitol Hill in Denver) since before I was born (betraying your age grandpa?) and that is my point. You've longed lived out your usefulness. Goodness, I drive behind people like you going to work and I wish I could shoot nuclear rockets at you to get out of my way. Could you please just die, so we (humans) could get on with life!?? Please, please!!!!!

Why sure, Mark. 32-year retired DPD veteran here. Yeah, I'll go quietly without a fight. Yeah, right.

Okay 5280. You have humbled me (to a point). But why do you have to be such a shit? There is a reality out there and you know it. What happens if African Americans don't show up at the polls this fall to put your girl over the top? Then what?

Well then, Mark, we're all fucked. As we are with The Big O, and as we are with McCan't. I don't have all the answers, any more than you do. Still want to see a Dem in the WH, though, and still actually think she's the best shot at seeing that happen. Still also think that whoever gets in is gonna be butt-fucked, cuz things are way too fucked up for any kind of short-term fix, so it may not even matter that much in the long run.

I don't like her. Never will. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe you're right. Please e-mail me directly and let's not bore these good people with our disagreements.
manderson.mlis@yahoo.com

And, you know, calling me a shit is about the nicest thing anybody has said to me in a long time. Believe me, I've been called far worse. Am I a shit simply because I don't agree with you? If so, I will sleep well tonight. Am I a shit because I have disrespected you? If so, I would sure love to know how. Or maybe it's just easier to call someone a shit than to have a meaningful conversation. If that's the case, I have nothing more to say.

E-mail sent.

You did not disrespect me. But I do wonder how widely you research what is going on. And I wonder how much you and so many others are willing to overlook on the part of the Clintons, and why?!

Just call me. I'm putting some coffee on and happy to talk.

Email yet not received. Want to talk. Please try again. manderson.mlis@yahoo.com

Re-sent. Check your junk folder.

5280-- So sorry, nothing appearing in Inbox, Bulk, or Trash folders. I guess Yahoo isn't all it is supposed to be. Damn it!

so Fitz @40 you are in effect saying that AA's are more rigid and unable to vote their self interest than southern racists?

@42 whenever I hear people talk about how this or that principle is worth increasing the risk of losing (we are talking about two candidates whose voting records are 95% the same), I think, "this is someone who is insulated from the true costs of losing."

Take Roe v. Wade, gee bill laborde, have you ever had to arrange for an abortion? Now imagine doing it illegally.

hey bill think about further loss of civil rights. if torture and wiretapping aren't good enough for you, don't worry the supreme court has just validated the poll tax.

think global warming bill (hmm funny weather today, better turn the AC up), more wars (not that you know anyone serving because its the only way out of the south bronx), more debt(someone else's problem), more ignorance (another four years of national idiocy won't effect you in your enclave).

Increase the Risk of all this in the name of the principle of one candidate being 5% better on policy (a debatable point), who will supposedly change the world because he is so special. Well I hope you are right because your principle will be cold comfort if McCain wins.

I give up. I tried. Twice.

5280 -- Got it.
Back to your scheduled program.