Henry Srebrnik, [
Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by a 10 per cent margin in the
An exit poll conducted at 40 precincts across Pennsylvania for the Associated Press on election day found 16 per cent of white voters said that race mattered in deciding whom they voted for, and just 54 per cent of those voters would support Obama in a general election were he the nominee.
In fact, 27 per cent of them said that in that case they would vote for John McCain, while 16 per cent said they would not vote at all.
It's also interesting to note that barely more than a third of
This is another sign that racism trumps chauvinism and misogyny in this race. Much of this contest has had nothing to do with "message" or "personality"- it is simply the colour of Obama's skin.
Since almost all African Americans in Pennsylvania voted for Obama - he won black-majority Philadelphia 65-35 per cent - and two-thirds of white women supported Clinton, the 'swing' vote that decided the race came down to white men, who went strongly for Clinton.
These are all people who have competed with African-Americans for jobs and housing in the big cities and sometimes see them as rivals.
Of course there are many reasons why all these groups might prefer
So if we discount these minute differences, what can we conclude? That many voters were saying, in effect, "better the white woman than the black man."
This is, needless to say, an oversimplification, but it's probably the "Occam's razor" answer. (This is the famous principle that states that the simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated ones, as propounded by the fourteenth century English friar William of Occam.)
And Hillary Clinton, while certainly no racist herself, is nonetheless making sure the super-delegates, who in the end will decide who gets the nomination, are made aware of this. Not above demagoguery, and using code language, she whispers to them that, despite having more delegates and a lead in the popular vote, Obama will be "unelectable" in the general election.
How different is this from a shopkeeper, in the days before there were laws against discrimination in hiring, justifying not employing blacks because "the customers wouldn't come into my store?"
This contest reminds me of those elections that take place in deeply divided societies.
How many Albanians would have voted for Slobodan Milosevic, or Serbs for the Kosovo Liberation Army, in pre-war Kosovo, had such an election been held?
How many Kikuyu in
How many Turks on
We know the answer.
In other words, such elections are merely "census counts" - you pretty much know the result in advance simply by looking at the population breakdown. In
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Henry Srebrnik, [
Friday, April 25, 2008
Has Running for the
Henry Srebrnik, [
Claiming the Obama was not up to the task of adequately protecting
Maybe that’s why an MSNBC poll taken a day before the vote showed hunters and gun owners favoring
A few weeks earlier, the New York Times had quoted Bill Clinton telling listeners at a rally in
But wouldn’t Obama’s so-called lack of toughness also apply to kids being attacked by bullies in schoolyards? Is this what Senator Clinton meant when she asserted, years ago, that “it takes a village to raise a child?”
Pummeling Obama through innuendo and guilt-by-association – Obama has crossed paths with a Chicago professor who forty years ago was a New Left radical; his former pastor has made controversial statements about America – has become the Clintons’ version of “scrutiny” and “vetting.”
I’d be more inclined to call them the kinds of smears once employed by the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Though it worked in
“I did not plan to endorse. But my conscience wouldn’t let me stay silent after this latest round of mudslinging,” Reich told the Los Angeles Times on April 18.
“The negative ads coming out of the
Anyhow, why has running for office become like boxing or wrestling? Do we really want politicians to be street-hardened thugs, or people with inspiring ideas and well-crafted political programs?
And shouldn’t feminists, who have long argued against such a macho approach to politics, be the first to criticize
The next major contests are in
Friday, April 04, 2008
Henry Srebrnik, [
The next big primary in the ongoing Democratic Party race is on April 22. The
Though Obama has won the endorsement of Bob Casey, one of the state’s senators,
Despite that, many pundits and politicians think that
Of course this assumes she feels bound to play by the rules. But what if her sense of entitlement is so strong that she is willing to break them if necessary? In an e-mail she sent out at the end of March, and quoted by the Washington Post,
In an interview with the same paper during a campaign stop in
In fact, she went further.
As well, 20 well-heeled backers of
Many of the extremely wealthy people who signed the letter benefitted from legislation passed during Bill Clinton’s presidency, and are happy in return to scratch the
When another prominent Democrat,
Carville told the New York Times on Good Friday that the endorsement was an “act of betrayal” that “came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out (Jesus) for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic.”
Carville seems to regard the Democratic Party as a
If you compare Obama’s endorsements with
As she grows ever more frenzied in her pursuit of the nomination, Hillary Clinton is fast becoming the Mwai Kibaki of American politics. (Kibaki is the Kenyan leader who stole the presidential election from a rival last December.)
What’s next, a coup d’état if Barack Obama wins the nomination?
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Henry Srebrnik, [
Jewish defense organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League and the
To pick a somewhat minor example recently in the news, Congress wrote to the Kirkland Lake, Ontario, town council, inquiring as to why a street in the town was named
Frankly, I’d feel better were the street given some other name; after the Holocaust, the swastika, I’m afraid, can never lose its sinister connotations. Still, it turns out to have been an innocent misunderstanding.
We know that Jewish groups will sometimes censure people or groups for remarks that seem only tangentially to have anti-Jewish implications. So why has there been relative silence from American Jewish organizations when political operative and Hillary Clinton supporter James Carville called New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, once a member of President Bill Clinton’s Cabinet, a “Judas”?
Carville made the remark after
In much of western culture, Judas became the stereotype of the greedy, traitorous Jew, the man responsible for deicide. His very name and image has been used to incite violence against Jews over the centuries. How many of us have been murdered in pogroms due to this libel?
Hitler, among many others, certainly knew the power of the “J-word.”
No doubt Carville did not intend to malign Jews – but could he not have used a different example, one less offensive to Jewish ears? The traitor Benedict Arnold, the American general who switched sides and sold out to the British during the American Revolution, comes to mind.
Were an evangelical Protestant to have made a similar statement – say, while accusing some Republican of turning against John McCain – my guess is we’d have heard more of an outcry.
But most American Jews are fairly secular and a majority support the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton is a
So is there a double standard at work here? Judge for yourself.