Yesterday I was on The Mike Signorile Show on Sirius OutQ and talked about Obama, Clinton, and the behavior of the mainstream media regarding gender and race dynamics in New Hampshire –including the possibility of Bradley and Tweety Effects and the impact on the final outcome.
Here is the mp.3. You can also use the player below.
One of the interesting things, of course, is that there seems to be a problem for some progressives about voting for Obama that are race-based, but not because of personal objections to electing a black man to the presidency.
As I posted yesterday:
Reasons I’ve heard progressive people say they won’t vote for ObamaWhat I think people on the left also fear is that citizens in a state, NH, one that isn’t viewed as a stereotypically “racist” one (read: The South), are capable of implicit or overt bias in the voting booth. Bias runs so deep when it comes to race that we cannot even define it aloud.The reasons I hear most (and these folks are white) are similar in nature — ”I didn’t/won’t vote for Obama because…”
— “he can’t win, because there are too many (other) people who won’t vote for a black man; he’s unelectable.”
— “If he advances too far, Obama could be assassinated; I don’t want to be responsible for that occurring. [”enabling it to happen”].
— “it’s time for a woman. His time will come.” [A variation on what Blender Herb heard at a local diner in NH after the primary.]
As I emailed a fellow blogger today, a black man is running for president — how can race not be a topic, given a prior year that had media blow ups about Imus, Michael Richards, and Dog the Bounty Hunter? It’s absurd. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. Those examples were classic ones — the first defense out of the box was “I’m not a racist.” Or worse, Michael Richards attempted some sort of “possession” defense that he didn’t know what took over him when he went on a racist tirade onstage.
More below the fold.
That begs for discussion about what is troubling folks about it all — acknowledging that they are capable of biased behavior or thought — or being publicly labeled “racist,” which in current cultural terms seems to be equated with an unredeemable, irreversible quality and having a Klan robe in your closet, rather than accepting that racism is embedded in all of us and needs to be discussed to be overcome.
racismThe word is casually tossed around and politicized, but it describes the implicit or explicit thinking behind a lot of behavior, including the above-mentioned celebrities. The issue they have that is not articulated above, is that all of them would probably tell you that they are not active proponents of racial superiority, or “hate” anyone.
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
The definition above is quite stark, and doesn’t leave room for implicit bias that occurs because of living in a country steeped in institutional racism that we don’t even think about. Just like the implicit and explicit heterosupremacy in this culture; people assume everyone is straight by default, and that the culture supports all things heterosexual. This isn’t about what is wrong or right, it’s about what currently exists.
Personally, I think the terrible treatment that Hillary Clinton received in the MSM following her “emotional moment” did have an impact on those final independent undecideds, but we’ll never really know what happened — it will be interesting to see how things break in other states.
From an interesting piece in E&P on the Bradley effect and NH:
Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center said, “The failure [of polling] on the Democratic side has to do with the fact that Clinton ran best among groups of voters who most often refuse polls — poorer, less well-educated people. These are also the very people who are reluctant to vote for a black candidate.”It’s easy to point at the Republican party and some of the outrageous race-baiting that occurs, but it’s not up to Obama to help us look in the mirror and examine and discuss bias in our own house, that’s our job as individuals who seek positive cultural change. Avoiding it allows it to flourish and be used to scare and manipulate people at a base, almost unconscious level.And Kohut told the Associated Press: “You can’t rule this out as an issue.” He said the problem had not arisen in Iowa, where ‘’Obama was not the front-runner. He was not such a symbol, perhaps threateningly, to people who don’t like blacks, that he might be president.'’ He told NPR he would be drilling deeper into the results this week to see what shows up in this area.
…MSNBC’s “First Read” political blog framed it this way: “In fact, we can only think of three races in which the public polls and the final result were SO off, and they all involved African-American candidates: Bradley’s ‘82 gubernatorial campaign in California, Doug Wilder’s surprisingly narrow ‘89 victory for Virginia governor, and Harvey Gantt’s surprise loss for North Carolina Senate.
“There is no poll question we can find that can truly measure this phenomenon. But African-Americans are thinking this…”
Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Wednesday night told pollster James Zogby that the only thing we now know for sure coming out of New Hampshire is “Democrats lie.” He wasn’t referring to the racial controversy but the issue is now out there.
24 Responses to “Race, gender, the MSM and NH: audio from my segment on Mike Signorile Show”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Is there a transcript for your remarks? I read a lot faster than I listen.
Sorry, no.
Yes, but try to pay attention, people. Just assume everything the PWP says is false.
There are plenty of reasons to like or dislike both Clinton and Obama that are completely removed from their race or gender. The kneejerk labeling of people as racist if they don’t support Obama or sexist for not supporting Clinton is about to drive me bonkers.
There are plenty of reasons to like or dislike both Clinton and Obama that are completely removed from their race or gender. The kneejerk labeling of people as racist if they don’t support Obama or sexist for not supporting Clinton is about to drive me bonkers.
I addressed this in a later post on this top — one of my commenters raised your point:
I replied: These aren’t mutually exclusive topics.“These aren’t mutually exclusive topics.”
I guess I don’t understand. I can see how both topics are important to discuss and relevant to the election, but not how they’re automatically related I guess. There’s going to be a lot of ugliness in the next few months and a lot of emotions stirred up over people saying either ignorant or deliberately insulting things. There’s clearly a need to talk about that and stay on top of it.
However, I don’t like people assuming that my reasons for supporting/rejecting a said candidate arbitrarily fall along race/gender lines either (they don’t).
Speaking as someone living in Manchester, in a lower-income working class neighborhood, with a HUGE Obama sign down the end of my block the whole past month (& quite other neighbors with a Haitian sticker on their station wagon) a lot of those working mothers voting in town are either minority, or part of mixed-race families, and without intervieing them and getting hard data I’d be hesitant to bet how any of them voted basd on the usual assumptions by media asses - I did breakdowns by township of how votes went in the last presidential election, and it didn’t match up to the media narratives for the state at all. I mean, how would anyone know just from nothing, how the white woman in my ward wearing the Manchester Airport Security uniform with the mixed-race toddler on her arm would have voted?
Yes, there’s plenty of “genteel” racism up here, and a lot of it from the whte flight Mass expats up here commuting to Boston to avoid paying taxes - most of whom are white collar college-and-above professionals. The blue-collar types living in tenements in my area, a lot of them, *are* brown, or browner, with new waves of immigrants from all imaginable ethnic backgrounds (the graduation ceremonies for our High School are quite impressively diverse these past years - valedictorian at Manchester HS West was black in 2007, frex, and other student leaders were Asian - East and South) and this is why the white flight Mass expats are afraid to come to stores on my side of town, which is just hilarious to me.
“he can’t win, because there are too many (other) people who won’t vote for a black man; he’s unelectable.”
This reminds me of the sad history of white flight. The classic line: **I** have no problem with having black people as neighbors, but everyone else’s racism will drive down the property values, so I’m selling my house and moving.”
I think that a lot of the white folks that I know define modern racism as discourtesy aimed at individuals and so, because they’re not discourteous (with racial overtones) to individual people, they’re not racist.
Errrr, not.
‘I think that a lot of the white folks that I know define modern racism as discourtesy aimed at individuals and so, because they’re not discourteous (with racial overtones) to individual people, they’re not racist.
Errrr, not.”
Fair enough. Everyone has been touched by racism and could therefore be classed as racist. White people who oppose Obama are not necessarily manifesting some latent racist tendencies in their decision-making process, though (nor are people who oppose Clinton necessarily manifesting sexism). I’m sure it would be more conforting to supporters to write that opposition off on such easy grounds.
Oops, *comforting
Unless what you’re saying is that people literally cannot avoid manifesting racist or sexist tendencies in evaluating minority/female candidates? If that’s the case, what are we honestly supposed to do about it?
Sheesh, everybody has internalized racism and sexism to at least some extent. It is unavoidable when living in a racist, sexist culture.
Some people acknowledge this and actively work to unlearn what they’ve been taught about race and/or sex from birth. I refer to these people as anti-racist and/or feminist.
Others either embrace their racism. They are what most people think of when they hear the word “racism” and/or “sexism.”
But the vast majority of people refuse to acknowledge racism and/or sexism, and have convinved themselves they haven’t a racist/sexist bone in their bodies.
Meanwhile, they unknowingly perpetuate racist and/or sexist attitudes, traditions, policies. They also fail to call out racism and/or sexism when they see it or hear it or recognize it or even suspect it. These are the people who allow the overt racism and/or sexism to linger and fester and inhibit progress.
Should read:
Others embrace their racism and/or sexism. They are what most people think of when they hear the words “racism” and/or “sexism.”
We can avoid it by looking at it and talking about it, and searching the crannies of our patriarchy-infested brains, Sheesh. Which (I think) is what Pam’s trying to bring up.
I know damned well I’m not Simon Pure. I’m not overtly racist, I’ll vote for Obama. But I’m not going to get all het up and defensive if someone asks me if I have any racism lurking inside.
If a man can say, WITH A STRAIGHT FACE, that it’s not sexist to say a woman just isn’t tough enough to be president, then I could certainly have my own blind spots. That’s the thing about blind spots–you can’t see them.
‘That’s the thing about blind spots–you can’t see them.”
I guess that’s what bothers me about it. I think I’m pretty fair to everyone and try to have at least some knowledge about these things, but then something will happen (like the whole “jive” thing) and it’s back to “ahaha, stupid white girl” square one.
Not that I want to make it all about me either. It’s just…disheartening is all. I’ll never be able to memorize every stupid reference to how everyone’s been oppressed since the dawn of time and I’ll likely keep offending people no matter what. Sometimes you just wanna get pissed and throw up your hands and say “why the fuck do I even bother worrying about it”?
That’s rhetorical, of course: the reasons for worrying about racism and sexism and working to change them are obvious. Doesn’t mean I don’t still get pissed off by the process every now and then, though. It’s all so completely ridiculous.
When people say they won’t vote for him because other people are racist, it is suggestive of some underlying racial issues within them. After all, some people won’t vote for Hilary because she’s a woman, Kuchinch because he’s short, and Edwards because he looks too polished and pretty-boy. Some people will reject any of the candidates for any reason– Obama has shown he can get a lot of support so far.
When people say he’ll be assassinated because he’s black, they are pretty much ignoring that people try to assassinate just about any president. That’s why they have so much protection!
These things *are* worth discussing. Furthermore, it seems like people are somewhat ignoring that Obama himself must have given some thought to racism when he decided to run. Shouldn’t his desire to take the risk override the point of him being a possible target for assassination?
But there are plenty of other reasons to choose this or that candidate to support. And yet, it’s certainly helped me to reevaluate Obama, reading people pointing out that he may be running on a conciliatory theme because he can’t afford to be an Angry Black Man. So even talking about how race impacts other things has helped me see him differently.
When people say they won’t vote for him because other people are racist, it is suggestive of some underlying racial issues within them. After all, some people won’t vote for Hilary because she’s a woman, Kuchinch because he’s short, and Edwards because he looks too polished and pretty-boy. Some people will reject any of the candidates for any reason– Obama has shown he can get a lot of support so far.
When people say he’ll be assassinated because he’s black, they are pretty much ignoring that people try to assassinate just about any president. That’s why they have so much protection!
These things *are* worth discussing. Furthermore, it seems like people are somewhat ignoring that Obama himself must have given some thought to racism when he decided to run. Shouldn’t his desire to take the risk override the point of him being a possible target for assassination?
But there are plenty of other reasons to choose this or that candidate to support. And yet, it’s certainly helped me to reevaluate Obama, reading people pointing out that he may be running on a conciliatory theme because he can’t afford to be an Angry Black Man. So even talking about how race impacts other things has helped me see him differently.
— “he can’t win, because there are too many (other) people who won’t vote for a black man; he’s unelectable.”
— “If he advances too far, Obama could be assassinated; I don’t want to be responsible for that occurring. [”enabling it to happen”].
— “it’s time for a woman. His time will come.”
If anything, that second argument ought to apply at least as much to Hillary as to Obama.
I don’t see Obama being any more likely to be killed in office than any other Democratic president.
You can’t understate the visceral, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of Hillary out there especially among the militia/whitepower/McViegh sympathizers. I’d be surprised if there weren’t a few thousand or so right now sighting in their deer rifles just aching for a shot at her. Hell, if she gets the nomination, she might well be targeted before the general.
I just don’t see that level of hatred for Obama. Not that it isn’t out there; I just haven’t seen it around here. Even the most racist of acquaintances don’t get spit flying out of their red faces when they talk about him like they do with her. (Actually, I don’t think they really see him as black. He doesn’t fit their idea of “black man”, so he’s not one.)
Continuing the “most likely to be assassinated” theme: if a President Edwards actually proves to be effective at reining in corporate power, especially the energy industry, or threatened to bring real accountability and justice to the war profiteers, I’d almost expect a Blackwater/Dyncorp black op under contract to Exxon/KBR/GE. To me, that’d be scarier than a lone redneck with a good rifle.
Now, where’s that damned tinfoil? I need a new hat.
For that matter the third argument would also apply to Clinton- “we need a black president now; she’ll get her turn.” When really we don’t NEED a black president or a woman president, though both are long overdue; right now, what we really need is a truly progressive president with a strong record of fighting corporate interests on behalf of regular people. That would be Edwards.
Someone who everyone says can make nice with the Republicans just won’t cut it with me. It’s way too late for that bipartisan centrist stuff. Anyway, that’s what we had with Bill; in the 90s that may have been ok (it wasn’t), but it sure as hell isn’t now. We need a fighter, not another enabler/appeaser. If anything, history has shown us that you can’t cut deals with the GOP; they don’t compromise at all. You surely can’t expect to charm people who won’t listen to reason. Like Edwards has said, you have to fight them.
And just maybe, a white southern man wouldn’t have the race and misogyny issues to contend with, taking energy away from the cause of undoing the massive damage done by the BushCo and their enablers.
I hope y’all don’t take this the wrong way, but a president who has to stay in the middle to avoid seeming scary to the racists and misogynists is not going to be able to fight for real populist ideas.
I guess this is similar to the 1st argument, but I’m not talking about electability here. I think they’re all electable, compared to any of the freaks on the GOP side. I’m talking about what each will be able to accomplish once in office.
I dunno. Maybe that’s a distinction without a difference.
Does that reflect some latent racism/misogyny on my part? I hope not. I like to think that I’m evaluating candidates’ for their policies and records, as well as how effective they could be at turning their ideas into action. Or maybe deep down I’m just scared of black guys and women…
But then, I’m going to try to get in and see Obama at a townhall event at the Culinary Union hall tomorrow. Maybe he’ll win me over.
Did you not just say yesterday that people shouldn’t vote for Clinton because there are too many (other) people who won’t vote for a woman; she’s unelectable? How is it racist in one context but not sexist in the other?
I guess that’s what bothers me about it. I think I’m pretty fair to everyone and try to have at least some knowledge about these things, but then something will happen (like the whole “jive” thing) and it’s back to “ahaha, stupid white girl” square one.
I think the difference with “stupid white girls” like you and me, Sheesh, is that we’re teachable.
We’re WILLING to learn. If we don’t get it, we ask; if the asking is pissing everyone else off we shut up and try to figure it out later.
There are people who just say, “Fuck you, that’s not how I meant it, so YOU’RE WRONG (about your own experience).” “It was just a joke, where’s your sense of humor?” “It was a compliment, what are you getting so mad about?” Et cetera.
I hope any president of mine WOULD BE contending with racism and sexism, for God’s sake. He or she had damned well better be working for change for EVERYONE (not just the middle class). The Rethugs aren’t going to cooperate with anyone, so it’s not like “electability” is going to get us anywhere.
Everyone should have a chance to run for president. Just because Obama is black and Clinton is a woman doesn’t make them any different. Their just as smart and as capable as every other white man that taken charge. The three cases of someone of a different race running for president or for any position and having the state miscount is a sign that not everyone is accepting. If it was truly a mistake, then there would be more miscounts.