n a t b s

MICHELLE BERNARD, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  This is—I think the most important thing I can say is that I‘m so glad that I‘m alive and old enough in a point in history to fully absorb what was happening.  I actually went away and sat in the green room by myself so that I could just absorb it and actually weep alone.

This is the most amazing evening of my entire life.  I kept looking at Barack Obama the entire evening and I kept thinking that one day that could be my son or my daughter.  Barack Obama, I think, in being elected as the Democratic Party‘s nominee has demonstrated to the entire world that in America anything is possible.

Joe Biden said it last night and you kept hearing Barack Obama say it again tonight, America‘s promise, America‘s promise, America‘s promise.  And you can‘t help but look at him and say America has finally realized its promise.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

MATTHEWS:  F. Scott Fitzgerald once said that—others have said it before that we‘re not an ethnic group, America.  Britain is an island and the French are a people.  He once said that we‘re harder to utter, something harder to utter, a willingness of the heart.  Is this nomination of Barack Obama a willingness of the heart, of the mind?  Is this a real change?  Is this a hope?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Yes, it is!

MATTHEWS:  A prospect or a reality, where are we?

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

BERNARD:  It is all of the above, as they are telling us.

(LAUGHTER)

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

BERNARD:  We are looking tonight behind us at a sea of beautiful black, white, Asian faces.  It tells me that the era of identity politics in the United States is over.  I will be very happy on election night if we can get to a point where we don‘t have to talk about how women are voting, how African-Americans are voting, how people in Appalachia are voting.

Iowa did it first.  Iowa demonstrated that in this country white people will vote for a black man.  It‘s the greatest day in our nation‘s history.

…

America is a fundamentally different country today.  It will be even more different if he wins this election.  But regardless of the outcome of the election, our country will never be the same again.

wow

Though it’s been a forgone conclusion for months, Obama finally made if official and won the Democratic nomination this week. And despite all the obvious liberal-greatness that Obama is bringing to this country, I think one of the most profound and subtle effects of his candidacy will be on the mindset of young African-Americans. Keli Goff phrases it nicely in the Huffington Post:

That today in the classroom of some inner city school there is a black boy who now believes that there is another career goal for him to aspire to when he grows up besides rapper, athlete or inmate: president.

The black community in America has been struggling for some time now, not really their fault, but they have been. Hope is a powerful thing, and now they have new hope. He has shown that the highest office in the land is not out of reach, and that’s a powerful psychological barrier to be broken.

Aside: don’t worry women, your time will come.

-A

I’m sick of the way pollsters and news people talk about the electorate. They’re always talking about “the white vote” or “the black vote” or “the female vote” or “the whatever vote.” To me, it seems somewhat absurd and insulting. They look at how poor white people voted in Texas, for example, and then they look at how poor white people voted in PA and they say “politician A is losing the white vote.” My point? Maybe two people in two different states have different opinions even if they’re the same race! No, that couldn’t be it, because they’re poor and white, so they must all think the same. And also, their poorness and their whiteness are the only personal traits that inform their choices apparently.

It’s ridiculous, and it’s prejudiced. The news media, and politicians, view us purely based on whatever superficial group we’re apart of. I thought we were supposed to be judging people based on the content of their character, not on their demographic group. I’m not a statistician, or a sociologist, so I’ll ask: is there any evidence of a correlation between voting choices of demographic groups in one region and demographic groups in another? Sure you could say “Obama has been getting 90% of the black vote so there’s your proof right there.” But that’s too easy, and I think a little skewed. I can see how the first viable black candidate in a country founded on racism and slavery is very appealing to African Americans, and so this is a unique circumstance.

It just seems to me that referring to all white (or whatever) people as “the white vote”
is troublesome and probably misleading. There are so many factors that determine peoples’ decisions that to call it the white vote, as if someone’s whiteness was the only quality that mattered, seems morally and practically wrong to me. Perhaps it explains why these pundits can’t predict anything.

Doesn’t this method also have the problem of overlapping groups? If you’re talking about the white vote, and the educated vote, and the poor vote, and the urban vote, etc, there’s going to be a lot of people who fall into several of those categories. So maybe when Obama does something to appeal to “the white vote” that same action might alienate him from “the urban vote” but what if there’s a white urban person?! Did he gain that person’s vote or lose it? Gah! It’s so confusing! Though I guess they need fodder for their endless chatter, right? Poor news people, they have so much time to fill, we can’t expect them to also be accurate and not-racist.

When they talk about “the anything vote” it just rubs me the wrong way. And it also seems like it’s probably the wrong way to analyze the situation. And it also defines people based solely on their race, sex, or class. I thought we were supposed to be passed that in this country.

BTW: I’m a young educated white male who lives in an urban area. The young, male, educated, and urban parts of me want to vote for Obama, but the white part of me wants to vote for McCain. No part of me wants to vote for Hillary (not even the part that used to intern for her). In the end Obama got my vote. After all, 4/5 of me wanted to vote for him.

After virtually disappearing for several weeks, Bill is back on the scene. And I think he’s blowing it for Hillary again:

I think it would be a great thing if we had an election between two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interests of the country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on the issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.

What he means by “other stuff” is ambiguous I guess. He could have meant character attacks, of course his wife is the queen of character attcks so that wouldn’t make much sense. It seems like he’s subtly trying to say “race issues.” That’s basically been his angle this whole primary season, remember the Jesse Jackson comment? No matter what he mean by “other stuff” in the first part he is clearly implying that Barack Obama doesn’t love this country. Which is ridiculous. Obama obviously loves this country, flaws and all.

The Clintons continue to play dirty politics. Obama tries to elevate us and make us think. Who do you want as our president? Who’s would be a better leader?

So apparently the Wright comment that’s got everyone up in arms, the chickens coming home to roost one, was actually a quote. That’s right, Reverand Wright was quoting ambassador Edward Peck. Or if I were to be more detailed in my description I’d say white ambassador Edward Peck. And if I were to be even more descriptive I’d say white ambassador Edward Peck on the Fox “News” Channel. Yes, that’s the same channel that’s been criticizing Wright for his comments. His comments that he quoted from their broadcast. From now on we should spell hypocrisy f-o-x.

I actually watched some more of that sermon, to get context, and I’ve got to say this Rev. Wright talks some serious sense. He talks about how we took this country from the native Americans, how we enslaved Africans, how we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the point of all this? The reason he feels the need to remind us of such unpleasantness? “Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism.” True, true, and true. And those are still not his words, he’s still quoting. Not that that should matter because he’s making sense anyway.

Why is it that white people are so scared by angry black people? It must go back to slavery and segregation. It must be because we know we’re guilty. No, what am I saying? This guy is a hate-filled racist. Obviously.

—update—

So I’ve been trying to find the transcript of Peck’s remarks, but Fox News doesn’t seem to put it’s transcripts online. Apparently they’re available on Lexis-Nexis but I don’t have access. If anyone does I’d really appreciate it if you tried to find the transcript. Thanks, Andrew.