Senator Barack Obana and the African-American vote

Why Clinton is losing support of a core democratic group

Published on May 7, 2008 By Bahu Virupaksha In Astronomy

The great writer and Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison wrote once that "White skin notwithstanding, Clinton is our first black president. Blacker than any actual person could ever be elected in our childrens' lifetime". With this kind of endorsement, it is hard to fathom the fact that his wife hasd dropped to single digits as far as Arican-American vote is concerned.

The real reason for this fall is not hard to find. The highly negative campaign she ran against Obama made many believe that she was attacking him personally not his policies. She crafted a campaign on the wrong assumption that Obama is a caucasian male, and this strategy backfired. The more Clinton attacked Obama the more his support among the core democratic constituency grew. It is now dangerous to even think of making Hillary Clinton a candidate as she has virtulally no support in the black community.

Her husband, Bill Clinton, at least kept up the myth of beibng concerned about black issues and at a personal level he did have great empathy for them. The Hillary camapign did not build up on the support of the Bill factor.

The second factor is the opposition to the Iraq war. Somewhere on the road to the Democratic party nomination Hillary Clinton discovered that the Iraq war is not popular and that too after endorsing the Bush War plan and having voted for the war. It apperars that her opposition to the Iraq war is not based on principle but on expediency.

The third factor is the public perception that Hillary Clinton is just too deep into Washington politics to even make a token gesture of independence from the lobbyists and special-interest groups. In her entire life she has not been on the side of the opposition, she has always been an insider. Therefore it is difficult for anyone to believe that she stands for change.

Beyond all this lies the charisma that Barack Obama exudes and the shrill rhetoric of Hillary Clinton only shows up her warts and no matter the spin of the media she will always be seen as an insider teying to make the world believe that she is a born rebel.

Comments

Bahu Virupaksha

on May 07, 2008

The victory in Indianna is too narrow for Hillary Clinton to crow about.

Dr Guy

on May 07, 2008

The highly negative campaign she ran against Obama made many believe that she was attacking him personally not his policies. She crafted a campaign on the wrong assumption that Obama is a caucasian male, and this strategy backfired.

IN those 2 statements you speak volumes, but not to your point. First, negative campaigning is the rule, not the exception. That he is somehow insulated because he is black indicates that he is a quota kid, and not a real merit candidate. Quite frankly, if he cannot stand the rigors of the contest, how can we expect him to stand the rigors of the job? The truth? We cant. Quota kids are always suspect that they got there on gratis, not strength. And it impugns those who indeed make it on merit because we are told to look not at their qualifications, but their "minority" status. In business, that is fine, because should they fail, all we lose is another huckster. In any other profession, where life and death hang in the balance, that is a deadly perception. We cannot trust them because we dont know if they really are the best for the job, of just the most protected.

Second, Hillary has done nothing that has not been done before. I cant stand the woman, and abhor everything about her. But I would be less than honest if I became a democrat just to trash her for running a hard campaign. Nor will I. For what is being done to her has been done to every republican in the last 40 years. Yet no one cared or gave a second thought to it in the past, because they were not a "protected" species.

In the end, Barak cannot win. Not because he may or may not be qualified. But because he has decided (or his campaign and wife have so decided) to run as a quota kid and not as a candidate of merit. He may win the democrat nomination, but that is because he is running in the party of racism and negativism. But unfortunately, the nuclear button and indeed heads of all other nations do not care about America's quota system, but rather the competency of the leader themself. And in that category, Obama comes up way short. It is only when he gets extra points for his race that he is even being seriously considered for the job. That gets him to the ball, but not a dance with the prince.

Bahu Virupaksha

on May 12, 2008

Quota kids are always suspect that they got there on gratis, not strength

This is an argument that one hears ever so often. The fact is that social and structural discrimination does exist in American, as indeed it exists in all societies, and one way of bringing a degree of social inclusion is through affrimative action. And Obama is certainly none the worse for it.

Dr Guy

on May 12, 2008

No, you confuse the 2. Quota kid is not an argument but an observation. Just as it is with any profession. WHO are you going to trust to do a fireman carry on you - a male who had to undergo a more rigorous qualification? or a woman who was given a lower bar to pass? It is your life on the line. That says nothing about an individual woman's ability, only that when faced with a decision in which the only known factors are based upon an outward manifestation, you choose the one that you know passed the more rigorous test. Period.

As for institutional racism, you have that wrong as well. The solution is not to dumb down the qualifications, but to raise the qualifications of those discriminated against. Charles Drew was a doctor because he was more qualified than most of his peers, regardless of color. He needed no special assistance to become one. He did need an opportunity (equal, not affirmative action). Yet having never seen the man, would you trust him for a heart operation knowing that he did not have to pass the highest standards? or one that you knew did?

Affirmative action is an invidious institution that devalues the true achievements of a person based solely on a physical characteristic. Equal Opportunity is far Superior, but is ineffective if not all are given an equal preparation for the chosen path. It is in ensuring equal preparation that minorities will overcome structural discrimination (as you call it and a good description of it), not lowered expectations.

Look at the term you used itself. Structural Discrimination. You may argue that it is and always will be a part of society, but I say that is what we have to work on and eliminate. For in its elimination, we will indeed have equality. But giving society a narcotic when it has a raging bacterial infection is not going to cure the patient.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!