What’s just Alaska, you ask? Why just a little casual racism and sexism from your Republican Vice Presidential nominee, that’s all:
“So Sambo beat the bitch!”
This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.
“It was kind of disgusting,” Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the “lower 48” about life near the North Pole.
Then, almost with a sigh, she added, “But that’s just Alaska.”
Unfortunately, it may not be just Alaska or even Sarah Palin and her “friends” on the Christian Nationalist/Neo-Confederacy side of the political spectrum who share these crude racist sentiments regarding Barack Obama (h/t the field negro):
Let us swing the door ajar and invite the elephant into the room. One big reason Barack Obama is locked in a tight race, rather than easily outdistancing his opponent, is because he is black.
That factor is rarely discussed in polite political conversation. People tend to dance around it, talking instead about Obama’s perceived inexperience, or his youth, or his perceived airs, or his liberal voting record. And racist sentiment rarely shows up in the polls, because a lot of people don’t want to share their baser instincts with the pollsters; they’ll save that instead for the privacy of the voting booth.
But the incremental evidence – anecdotal and even statistical – has become impossible to ignore.
Union organizers in the key state of Michigan complain in the press that, as one puts it, “we’re all struggling to some extent with the problem of white workers who will not vote for Obama because of his color.” An aging mine electrician from Kentucky is quoted as saying, “I won’t vote for a colored man. He’ll put too many coloreds in jobs.” An elderly woman in a New Jersey hair salon is overheard complaining about Barack and Michelle Obama the other day, about how blacks supposedly have larger bones than whites, and about how she’s fleeing America if Obama wins. […]
… Case in point, Pennsylvania. On the day of the Democratic presidential primary, 12 percent of the white Democratic voters told the exit pollsters that race mattered in their choice of candidate; of those whites, 76 percent chose Hillary Rodham Clinton over Obama. The same pattern surfaced in other states, including the key autumn state of Ohio.
This is worth pondering a moment longer. If 12 percent of Democratic voters are willing to tell exit pollsters, eye to eye, that race was an important factor, to Obama’s detriment, isn’t it fair to assume that the real percentage (including those who kept their sentiments private) was actually higher? And what might this portend for the general election, when the white electorate will be broader, and hence significantly less liberal, than in Democratic contests?
. . . Last June, the Washington Post-ABC News poll devised a “racial sensitivity index,” based on a series of nuanced questions that were designed to measure the varying levels of racial prejudice in the white electorate. The pollsters came up with three categories, ranging from most to least enlightened. The key finding: Whites in the least-enlightened category – roughly 30 percent of the white electorate – favored John McCain over Obama by a ratio of 2-1.
So what is the true power of Sarah Palin’s and McCain’s appeal? Why are they doing better than expected in the polls despite 8 years of Republican corruption, incompetence, lies and failures? I hate to say this of my fellow white Americans, but one very important factor appears to be a quality he possesses which many of them consider immutable, and a deal breaker when it comes to voting for Obama: the color of his skin. Hopefully in the debates this Fall Obama can do well enough to convince some of my fellow whites who are on the fence that the content of his character matters more than their stereotypical view of “his kind.” If not this will be a long and ugly campaign that will remain close enough for the GOP to steal once more through the use of their vaunted “purge the voters who don’t look pale enough” campaigns which have been so effective in 2000 and 2004.
If not, we may hear more stories about Republicans gloating about how they beat “Sambo” this November.
You mean the Bradley Effect?
I still have to say that’s already been factored in. There are so many bullshit reasons people who don’t want to vote for Obama can use to absolve them of racism: He’s a secret Muslim plant, his wife’s a militant, he’s not a US citizen, he’s an arugula munching elitist, yadda yadda.
The GOP has conveniently given us so many different lies about the man that the kind of people who would normally tell pollsters “Yeah I’m voting for him” and were really lying to cover their racism can instead tell pollsters “No, he’s a Muslim!” or something and just be ignorant instead.
Ignorant’s always better than racist, you know. It’s already been factored in, and the GOP wanted it that way to convince people Obama has no chance instead of being a close, close race.
It may be unfair, but Obama needs to counter his perception as a “black” candidate by having more white surrogates in the media. On CNN, the biggest Obama advocates are Roland Martin and Donna Brazile. On MSNBC, other than their own hosts Olbermann and Maddow, it’s Eugene Robinson. Guests taking Obama’s side tend strongly to be black. This reinforces the impression that Obama is a candidate for black people, and will disproportionately advance the interests of blacks if elected. I hope this can get through to the campaign. Obama is black, but it needs to be made clear that support for Obama is not just a “black thing”.
I want to clarify that I realize Martin, Brazile, and Robinson are not simply campaign surrogates, but they do seem more sympathetic than most of the staff pundits. The guest pundits, who frequently are there explicitly to advocate for Obama, also tend to be black, at least much more than by the 12% or so of the population they represent. I can see why blacks would particularly identify with the Obama campaign, but he is running for President of the entire country, and if he is seen as the candidate of a minority, he loses.
The irony of this is that when he started his campaign he wasn’t black enough.
I always thought that was a red herring. After all, he’s certainly not “less black” than any of the other major bcandidates. It doesn’t seemed to have made a difference to black people, who flocked to Obama as soon as he showed his viability with whites, and it’s hard for me to see many whites voting for Clinton or McCain because they are “more black” than Obama.
Any opinion that I have about this would be purely anecdotal, but I certainly don’t think my experience is really an outlier or an oddity in most places in the country. Race is really “THE ISSUE” in this election but it will be almost impossible to quantify it in a manner that will demonstrate this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
I can only speak from my personal experience and the infinitesimally small percentage of the electorate that I might come in contact with and who might discuss such a thing in public. The great majority of people that I know who will definitely not be voting for Obama will, at some point in the course of their conversation with what they perceive as a “friendly audience”, most certainly make a racially derogatory reference to Obama. That is just a fact. I hear it every day. Closeted bigotry is just an overwhelming fact in my part of the country. White people in my area, generally speaking, do not like blacks. They might work with them, go to church with them, their kids might play together and they might well even know some that they call their “friends”. But the acceptance of a black person is always strictly on an individual basis. You hear it in comments like, “He’s the nicest black guy” or “I met the nicest black lady at the grocery”. It is always qualified in way which infers that the default status of a black person is as an “undesirable”. The onus is on the black person to show they are not like “most blacks”. I’ve known people who will protest that this is not bigotry on their part. But the qualifications are never applied, in any instance, to ones of their own race. Blacks, Hispanics, people of Middle Eastern descent and Asians to a degree are all judged to be inferior to white people unless proven differently on an individual basis. This is certainly not an exclusive characteristic of just white people, either. There are many minorities who exercise the same level of bigotry toward others which I see in my white-bread community. But the effects of this behavior when practiced by the majority community in this country, which is white, is truly bone-jarring.
Everyone dances around the issue, Steven, because of their own sensitivities and insecurities, but the fact is that among huge swaths of this country, Obama is viewed by these people, especially when they are among their own polite company, as “an uppity nigger”. And it is apparent that this is the message that the Republican Party is only too proud to tout in any way that they can. The label works. White people get it. They are comfortable with it. It answers all their questions. It soothes all their fears. It reinforces, in their own minds, that they are exceptional. This is “their country”. Anyone else is an outsider.
“sambo”.
/hangs head in shame.
Seriously, what century do these people live in??? Even Lee Atwater would be appalled by THAT remark.
And stupid, too. There are no tigers in Africa, and Sambo took place in India.
would be chuckling. He was a total piece of crap. I’m glad he’s dead.
I do not think Lee Atwater would hang his head in shame. He was the King of Ratfucking. Whatever it took, baby, whatever it took.
It’s about a whole series of complex, interlocking issues. I was watching two surrogates go at it on CNN and the Republican said (I think in response to Steve McMahon? sp?) that Hillary was a cultural conservative. The Democrat asked how do you get Hillary as a cultural conservative and the Republican said-I kid you not-with a straight face-Obama’s out there talking about people being bitter and eating arugula and Hillary was doing shots in bars. Now personally, I have both eaten arugula and downed shots in bars, so I am not sure what that makes me.
But in an odd sort of way this guy was on to something. Obama is also attacked for being too urban, too thoughtful and even too European: in short-too cosmopolitan.
I recall experiencing this kind of politics before in Romania when I was teaching and working there in the 1990’s. The former communists and the very far Romanian right had made a common cause and attacke these very same enemies with very much the same kind of rhetoric. It is a rhetoric of Romanianness vs. Cosmopolitanism as chronicled by anthropologist Katherine Verdery. IT goes back to the interwar Romanian fascist movement. It is also very evocative of Weimar Germany.
Anthropologist Eric Wolf in his last book “Ideologies of Domination and Crisis” also wrote about how during periods of culturals tress and decline of elite power elites turn towards consciously deploying cultural symbols as a means of mobilizing popular support to shore up their power. Wolf discusses three cases-including quite notably, Nazi Germany.
The idea incidentally, can be traced back to the American Institutionalist Economist Thorstein Veblen’s writings at the turn of the century.
So let’s put it together-Obama is not just “black” he is the generalized cultural “other”: the symbol of urban sophistication, modernism, intellectualism, cooperation with other nations, science, pragmatism-all the things that the far right despises. Being black just reinforces it.
And it really does put Hillary Clinton’s campaign in a whole new light because Hillary legitimized the discourse and allowed it to mix with a very crude, crass species of second wave feminism and identity politics.
Gee, the worst of both worlds:
Adlai Stevenson as a Gangsta.
I beg to differ.
Race has always been there, even when Obama took the lead ahead of McCain, before the fraudulent apalin Palin was named McCain’s sidekick.
The media, like lemmings, followed the bullet to Ohio on the morning after Obama’s acceptance speech and true to form, they ran with trivia. The Palin announcement was fresh face news designed to, and succeeded in sucking the wind-bounce out of the DNC Obama-Biden camp.
Stop the hypo-ventilating. It’s the end of week one and,
The tide has turned. If Fox News can call out the lie on the bridge to nowhere, you know the tide has turned. Watch the video in my diary ‘Apalin Palin.’
This woman is a 72 yr old heartbeat away from being president. If that’s not scary, go take on a moose.
OMG, Ed Koch has just endorsed Obama, saying Palin is scary
McCain camp endorses Palin’s claim that the Iraq war is a task ‘from God’
Thing is on Christian right wing radio McCain is a hard sell. It’s his character. year 2000 is not forgotten.
C’mon, we all knew what this election was about as soon as Obama rose to the top: its a litmus test to see if America is a grown-up country or a snarling pack of backwoods retards.
Can a country founded on slavery, whose old wealth stems directly from slave labor, a country who even now allows STATES to fly the flag of traitorous slave-owners… can the USA elect a highly qualified BLACK as president over a dimwitted cranky old geezer on his last legs?
Talk all you want about other issues but they don’t count and we all know it. Are we a mature, thinking people or are we racist slavers?
As much as I like the couple who run LA Progressive, I was a little shocked they let this be printed on their space, considering the fact that the first time I met Dick he showed a little disdain toward bloggers as “rumormongers”. In fact, most of the people in this district tend not to trust bloggers because of pieces like the one in LA Progressive.
There is not one iota of evidence in this post. The entire article reads like something from the LA Times with unnamed sources or people willing to speak freely off the record. I think Charley needs to either show some resources or this article should be pulled from their site.
Did all you bloggers decide that this is a valuable resource and if so, why? This is no different than the rumors nutjobs like Taylor Marsh wrote about Obama, just hearsay and “unnamed resources”.
Bleeech.
Yes, I’m running with this.
Here’s the link why.
LINK
If I had posted something like that and that “explanation” on this site or almost any other liberal blog, I’d be laughed out of town.
I don’t know. Sounds like he put more work into his reporting on Palin than Judith Brown did in hers on wmd in Iraq.
..Judith Brown ?
You mean Judith Miller?
Yes. (sheepishly admitting memory failure)
This is a notion that’s been flitting around in my head and I’ve been trying to find a way to express. Thanks for posting.
And while the elephant is so large and obvious, a donkey slipped in with it and is lurking in the shadows. Its going to be an ugly, ugly campaign, but thus far Obama has demonstrated a class and comportment in the face of it that is inspiring. Many want Obama to take off the gloves and hit back harder and nastier, but he can’t do that as that would just reinforce the “scary black man” meme.
Obama has to be careful how he hits back, I agree, but now McCain has an ad out that virtually calls him a child molester. Obama has to respond to that, and it is a tightrope: he cannot be an “angry black man”, and he cannot be Michael Dukasis, responding too abstractly where people expect emotion. I suggest turning the accusation around: “the bill I supported informed children of how to protect themselves from sex predators. Why does John McCain object to children knowing how to be safe from abuse?” That’s based on Maddow’s account of what the bill actually said. Apparently, it also specified that sex education courses should include information on preventing STDs. A similar response is possible there, but sticking to the molester point might be more effective: force McCain to answer that one.
even in landslide elections there are 40% of the population that doesn’t follow along. So, figure that into the mix. I think Obama will win with about 53% of the popular vote and with a closer electoral win. I think the rotten economy will be the reason because the GOP can’t do anything but make the rich richer and the rest of us pay for it
I believe it.
My now-deceased DEMOCRATIC grandmother in Montana referred to a black child in a restaurant “isn’t she the cutest little pickaninny?” I wanted to crawl under the table.
My Republican relatives are even more bigoted. At least she was complimenting the girl. They would have used other words.