Commentary: No Racism in the Presidential Election?
| AR Articles on Elections |
|---|
| Nationalist Politics in America (Part I) (Sep. 2002) |
| Nationalist Politics in America (Part II) (Oct. 2002) |
| It’s Race, Stupid (Jan. 2001) |
| Republican or Third Party? (Dec. 1999) |
| We Should Not Support Patrick Buchanan (Feb 2000) |
| Search AmRen.com for Elections |
| More news stories on Elections |
{snip}
Clinton sounded less like George Washington and more like George Wallace. Imagine a presidential primary where, after more than 16 months, almost two dozen debates, hundreds of speeches, millions of dollars, and countless chicken dinners, the rationale for electing someone boils down to this: Vote for me. I’m white. I can win because other whites will vote for me.
Why, this could be the new affirmative action. Whatever happened to merit?
Clinton’s message in West Virginia was smoother. “I’m winning Catholic voters and Hispanic voters,” she told supporters, “and blue-collar workers and seniors, the kind of people that Sen. McCain will be fighting for in the general election.”
{snip}
Some want to know why it isn’t racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.
The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?
Many are responding quite well. Obama won the votes of many, to borrow a phrase, “hardworking white Americans,” in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming. But, elsewhere, as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it.
{snip}
(Posted on May 14, 2008)
Comments
Ruben Navarrette seems to always wear his race — or in his case, his ethnicity — on his sleeve, and to always side with whoever has the darker skin in any argument. So it’s not surprising that he trots out the same tired old arguments that depict White Americans as “racist” when they don’t vote for a black candidate.
And isn’t it a hoot how he says some Americans are “responding quite well” to their first “chance” to “vote for an African American with a shot at the presidency.” In Navarrette’s world, “responding quite well” means voting black, lest you be denounced as a “White racist.” And by the way, Ruben, since when did it become agreed upon that voting for Obama was such a great opportunity? “Chance” was the right word, though. If we vote for Obama, we’re taking a BIG chance.
Posted by Wayne Engle at 6:17 PM on May 14
The most important thing to examine in these types of articles is not the author’s view (which is completely predictable coming from a guy like Ruben Navarrette) but rather the views expressed in the commentary of other readers. At the time I wrote this, there had been roughly 30 comments, and approximately half were from Whites expressing their utter disgust in being branded racist because they do not support Obama. This is a good thing.
It is my opinion that the election of Barack Obama is a critical step in arousing White racial consciousness, and thus, in presenting any hope for turning this country around. The election of John McCain will do nothing to further the cause, because he will not serve as the catalyst needed to push the average White person to the breaking point, and at the same time his views and policies wil continue to perpetuate Bush’s anti-White, anti-American agenda.
If the media deems it racist to oppose Obama’s election now, you can be sure that once he is elected president, it will be deemed racist to oppose ANY of his socialist, anti-White policies. The drumbeat will be constant. One thing that strikes me about this election cycle is that the anti-White sentiment in the media and among blacks is far more overt and brazen than it has ever been in the past. That trend will only get worse under a President Obama. And that is precisely what White America needs.
McCain is the status quo candidate. If the status quo holds, we lose. If Obama is elected, then there is at least a possibility that Whites will wake up. It’s a longshot, but a small chance is better than none at all.
Posted by Brian at 6:28 PM on May 14
The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?
This is disingenuous. Blacks voted for whites when that’s all they had to vote for. Now, first chance they get, they’re jumping behind the black guy.
Reporters really do seem to think we’re all stupid!
Posted by Svigor at 6:33 PM on May 14
Some want to know why it isn’t racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.
The answer has to do with history.
The answer is found in the currently fashionable interpretation of history in that everything whites have done is now defined as evil while everything blacks have ever done is now defined as victims responding to the evil whites are said to have done.
In simplest terms, whites bad, blacks good.
Posted by sbuffalonative at 7:19 PM on May 14
First of all, you say that African Americans have had the opportunity to vote for a white people for President over the years. and have done so, somewhat, most have sat the elections out…If you’ll remember Reagan and the elder Bush received very little in percentage of the black vote…and the Democratic candidates have had far less than 100% of the registered black voters voting for them…so, your answer isn’t quite right.
and as for the current election season…the jury is still out, and I’m not a betting person but if I was, I would bet that most of White America Democrat, Independent, and Republlican wont vote for Obama. I guess we’ll see in November If I’m right or wrong.
Posted by Max at 7:21 PM on May 14
That’s too rich; it’s as if the author has no mind of his own. Not a single inventive idea in the piece, not even an interesting new way of framing the basic issue.
This dude is an embarrassment to intelligent thought and journalism in the United States. This dope is actually a paid columnist? I mean, someone actually gives money for this man’s opinion on things; who the frap would do that?
Posted by David at 7:39 PM on May 14
There you have it White America - read and learn the lesson well that has been laid before you…Blacks will NEVER be held to the same standards as you, because their historical experience was different. Thus, all the rhetoric about equality, color-blind societies, pluralism, tolerance, inclusion, and the like do not, and WILL NEVER apply to Blacks as it applies to you! This institutionally entrenched double-standard is now a very pillar of the new American way, and when we and our offspring are long in our graves, it will continue apace.
Posted by HH at 8:01 PM on May 14
How much does reading this steam you?
Posted by ChiefofClanFearghus at 8:15 PM on May 14
Blacks make up 13% of the US population.
To use racial guilt and manipulation to suggest that 87% of the population vote against their racial interests in favor of the interests of blacks is antithetical to the very idea of democracy.
Posted by at 8:17 PM on May 14
The last time a White man ran for President, he was shot. I write of George Wallace, former Governor of Alabama, who was shot 5 times during his 1972 campaign. No one since then has truly been on our side.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 8:17 PM on May 14
There was a time when the democratic party was openly fascist and openly racist….violently racist. Why? Because there was a need for it. Democracy had become corrupt and failed to address social problems, especially those related to race.
And there will be a time when the democratic party is again, openly fascist, and openly racist. Why? Because the need has come again. Democracy has become corrupt and fails to address serious social problems….especially those related to race.
Clinton is testing the waters with this, I think. Obama certainly is a rabid fascist, openly running on a cult of personality and successfully using the vocabulary and methods of fascism. His message is strongly fascist and strongly (if not openly) racist. He is dishonest about what he is all about but people KNOW. He will lose. But notice how the lemmings dance to his tune. So many whites did too (until they were made to understood that this is RACE based fascism and they are the wrong race….the enemy).
But still, their willingness, even desire for race based fascism, remains. All it will take is for the racial consciousness of whites to awaken a little more. And for the right leaders to come along.
The democratic party is melting down, I think. Their defeat this election will create a power vacuum. One a David Duke (or a Ron Paul) is likely to fill.
Posted by at 8:29 PM on May 14
Anyone for the Bradley effect?
Posted by ilovemyfirstamendment at 8:36 PM on May 14
“Why, this could be the new affirmative action. Whatever happened to merit?”
Indeed, Comrade Navarrette it could be that, but more pressingly what did happen to “merit“ both past and present?
Wasn’t it slaughtered by the original “affirmative” actions this country experimented with?
Isn’t it currently Red reporters gregariously explaining away questions such as: “Some want to know why it isn’t racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him,” as being foolish. This is because: “The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?”
Oh, I know, they are not simply holding an “affirmative” action coronation for him, so it must be “racism.”
Never mind that Comrade Obama has not even completed one term in the US Senate, or spent 20 years in a church with an anti-white demagogue as his “pastor.” Never mind that Comrade Obama is married to a woman who can only be “proud” of the USA when it elects her husband to be president, or that he still openly cavorts with countercultural Red terrorists from the 60s.
No, it has to be white “racism,” that keeps him from “overcoming” because white “troglodytes” such as these, just can‘t “get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it.”
Right, Comrade Navarrette?
As always, God help us all!
Posted by John PM at 8:56 PM on May 14
I don’t know about anyone else but, obama the muslim makes my stomach turn even more than bush does….he’s a slinky slimy snake…I pray that he doesn’t win….I love my country and I want it to still be OUR COUNTRY AFTER ALL THIS IS OVER WITH….IF HE WINS, IT WON’T BE!!
Posted by lydia at 9:03 PM on May 14
“Some want to know why it isn’t racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.
“The answer has to do with history.
For a Humanities course in community college, I took a course in Logic.
I would surely be interested in a Venn Diagram demonstrating exactly HOW non-blacks voting AGAINST B. Hussein Obama is “RACIST” but that blacks FOR him isn’t.
Posted by at 9:36 PM on May 14
“Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?
Many are responding quite well.”
Well, there you have it, fellow White Americans. Obama is nothing more than a litmus test (in the guise of a Presidential candidate) to gauge the current levels of White racism in the USA.
So, how are you responding? I think in the end, we’ll all fall in line and do the “Wright” thing.
You wouldn’t want to let our fine op-ed writer, Ruben Navarrette Jr., down now, would you?
Posted by ZKR at 9:41 PM on May 14
Some want to know why it isn’t racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him..
The answer has to do with history.
So because blacks have had to vote for whites in a majority white nation, this means that whites now have an obligation to vote for blacks? Does that make sense? Also many whites are smart enough to realize that blacks do not tend to make good leaders. One only needs to look at the mess in most African nations to know that this is true.
Posted by Tim in Indiana at 9:48 PM on May 14
“The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency.”
Sorry, bud, but you haven’t convinced me. I live in the real world and know blacks will always show loyalty to blacks over all else. To Hell with your half-baked theory about blacks having the first black to vote for pres. They would vote for a black if he were the 100th black running for president.
Blacks and all other non-whites are race loyalists first, last and always.
Only whites are disunited.
Posted by ice at 10:00 PM on May 14
Another CNN fool letting his white guilt overtake his common sense and reasoned thought. This column is pure nonsense.
Posted by Ray Cist at 10:06 PM on May 14
A second observation, regarding Comrade Ruben Navarrette Jr.’s idiotic point:
“Some want to know why it isn’t racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.”
Since 80% or better of the 100-million-plus people who vote in national elections (not party primaries) are white, this Red freak has to squeal “racism” if only to grasp at straws, for his precious little mulatto to have a chance in November. Think about it, Comrade Obama the “Omniscient,” is barely beating the Red Queen in the “progressive” quarters now. Just what will happen in the general election, when whites are voting for a nominee and not a “hopeful” and untested symbol?
John-No Brains-McCain, will likely beat this inept mulatto bastard by 57% of the popular vote or better, come November. He is going to probably get 59% to 65% of the white vote and take all the “red” states, plus Michigan and Pennsylvania too.
I am not happy about this, except for the gratuitously vindictive mirth at seeing all the “enlightened” types crying in their brie and chardonnay, that I will likely enjoy.
A cold “comfort,” but a comfort still?
Posted by John PM at 10:18 PM on May 14
“Either fraternity is spontaneous, or it does not exist. To decree it is to annihilate it.”
-Frederic Bastiat.
How fitting a quotation to describe our modern day America. We are living in the age of enforced fraternity where we must vote against our self-interests in order to prove that we are worthy of ‘friends’ that we never asked for.
Posted by Phil at 10:28 PM on May 14
Dear Lord, listen to these shallow loud-mouths preaching to us as if their interpretation, which we all know is coming from a place a little lower than heaven, ie; the Inverted World of Political Correctness, were ultimate truth. As if what they’re pointing out, with so much drama and hyperbole, is so obvious, so self-evident.
No wonder poll after poll shows that the majority of people in the West don’t trust the MSM. Do they even know there’s been an Information Revolution and that the cat is out of the bag?
Posted by Mal Evans at 10:40 PM on May 14
“Clinton sounded less like George Washington and more like George Wallace.”
I guess for a liberal journalist, if you can’t compare your enemy to Hitler then George Wallace is an acceptable substitute. But it’s every bit as inaccurate and irresponsible.
The only thing Hillary Clinton and George Wallace have in common is that they both mentioned white people in public without the now-obligatory self-criticism or condescension.
Wallace spoke well of whites on a regular basis. For Hillary, to my knowledge, this was a first.
Posted by Right-Wing Rocker at 10:42 PM on May 14
At least they spelled out the concept that blacks voting for a black might be seen as racism.
Normally, the mainstream media wouldn’t even want to let that idea see the light of day.
Posted by Reader-1 at 10:43 PM on May 14
And what are they doing?
Many are responding quite well.
____________________
This is more like a class project than a legitimate campaign.
Posted by at 11:38 PM on May 14
Some want to know why it isn’t racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.
The answer has to do with history.
It’s interesting how the obvious answer is never the correct answer with liberals. Blacks do more poorly on IQ tests? It’s not due to lower intelligence but biased testing. Blacks commit more crimes? It’s not because they are more crime-prone but due to “institutional racism.” Blacks vote as a block? It’s not due to black racism but due to being “excluded from the political process.” Occam’s Razor never applies to blacks as far as liberals are concerned. One wonders why every aspect of black behavior must be so carefully rationalized in order to always excuse blacks.On the other hand, white behavior that can in any way be called racist can never be excused.
Posted by Tim in Indiana at 11:44 PM on May 14
I submitted a comment that included a reference to “the color of crime” and mentioning that no president, over the last 40-50 years, has associated himself with whites in a positive manner. Then I noticed it’s CNN and realized they’ll never publish my comment. Of course I also came down on the media so that’s another reason they won’t publish it - hence proving my very point!
Posted by jewamongyou at 11:53 PM on May 14
The subject of the obvious double standard employed by the left
comes up often. The important point to note is this: A higher
standard is imposed on whites because THEY EXPECT MORE OF THEM.
The lower standards used to measure black behavior results from
the racist attitude of the leftists who “consider the source”.
One can’t expect more - after all, they’re African.
ACE2X
Posted by at 12:04 AM on May 15
Since we now are a country with thought, and speech police, let me just say, in a more politically correct wording than I am allowed to say here. “This whole election fiasco has been {afro engineered} from the beginning”.
Posted by THE OLD SAGE at 12:13 AM on May 15
If the degree of in-group loyaly of a particular race can be caculated by the percentage of individuals who will vote for a particular candidate because of their racial affinity with that candidate, then blacks are far more ethnocentric than other groups. In one recent primary it was found that, (roughly) )0.65 of the white population voted for Hillary Clinton, and that 0.95 of the black population voted for Obama. That means that 0.35 of the white population that voted voted for Obama, and that 0.05 of the blacks who voted voted for Clinton (if we disregard certain variables). So, insofar as these things can be caculated using this method, then blacks would appear to be at least SEVEN TIMES as likely as whites to vote for a candidate because of in-group loyalty
It follows then that, using the liberal method of moral caculation without the double standard, that blacks are SEVEN TIMES as racist as whites.
Posted by White Canadian at 1:02 AM on May 15
“Obama won the votes of many hardworking whites in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming”.
Most of those elections took place several months ago. Iowa seems like ancient history. Back then Obama was a candidate that just happened to be half black, now he is “the black candidate”. My hunch is that if whites knew then what they know now he wouldn’t have done nearly as well.
The most recent primaries, starting with Ohio, Pennsylvania, and now the landslide in West Virginia has given me comfort and to use a word Obama is fond of “hope” that we are not too far gone. I am in awe that so many people, Democrats no less, are not voting for Obama.
Posted by Jay at 3:44 AM on May 15
We don’t need Barry H. Obama as a litmus test. Just look at every Amexican city governed by a black mayor. Crime is rampant, schools are in a state of disarray, dropout rates going through the roof, white flight, police serving as target practice for the new yuppies (young urban predators). Can’t wrap my mind around this on a national level. God save us!
Posted by Papa John at 11:13 AM on May 15
As a proud member of that much-maligned group of “uneducateds” known pejoratively as “rednecks,” — frum Wy-Oh-min’, no less —I dispute the idea that I am uneducated. I am very well educated — in terms of real life, anyway.
Certainly as a young woman coming out of those Cultural-Marxism indoctrination camps known as public high schools, I was poorly educated. I naively believed what my teachers said, that blacks, if treated fairly, would treat me fairly. Having no experience with blacks, it all sounded very logical.
So I moved to the big city and learned about reality real quick, and real hard. Being an autodidact, one learns most efficiently, especially after dark. Just one good car theft is all that is required to change one’s views. Happens real quick-like, too.
Oh, Ruben, I’m educated, all right. I just learned lessons that are exactly opposite from your propaganda.
And all those responding-quite-well “hardworking Americans” in Wyoming and Nebraska? Well, they just haven’t lived around ‘em, or dealt with them, yet. But you and La Raza and the rest of the race-baiters plan to remedy that, dontcha?
Posted by at 12:16 PM on May 15
Electing Obama as president would NOT indicate we are no longer racists… It would simply indicate, collectively we have lost our minds. By duplicating on a NATIONAL scale the failures and disasters, corruption and crime waves experienced by those cities unfortunate enough to have Black mayors.
Spouting fine-sounding phrases about “needing change” might go well as sound bytes on the evening news. But are hardly a substitute for experience, political acumen and knowing AND being able to do whatever needs to be done. Particularly if a vast domestic or international crisis looms up.
If Hillary Clinton still has her dream of becoming America’s First Female President, she’d better HOPE AND PRAY Obama is soundly defeated in November. We need to recall the Jimmy Carter administration. Carter was going to rid the White House of the Nixon scandals hanging over it. But turned out to be a complete inept buffoon of a president (GWB with brains, if you get my drift). Americans were so anxious to rid themselves of Carter the Republicans held the White House for 12 years.
So should Obama get elected, four years later the Democrats, no matter who they run, would be unable to win. The Democrats probably being locked out of the presidency for anywhere from 12 to 16 years at a minimum. Hillary, take note.
Posted by Fed Up at 1:22 PM on May 15
Some want to know why it isn’t racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him..
The answer has to do with history.
If anyone should be voting along racial lines because “of history” it should be white Southerners in remembrance of Reconstruction. I don’t expect Obama to get many white, Southern votes. Of course he will get all the votes of the decedents of the freed slaves who made the Northern carpetbagger’s job so much easier.
Posted by at 1:50 PM on May 15
I often respond to this columnist’s writings. Yes, he always skews issues in favor of his own color and ethnicity, and he loves to obliquely charge whites with “racism” at every opportunity that he can create.
The hot buttom word “racist” really needs to be deconstructed. It is trite, stereotizing and a now all too handy cannon with which the enemies of reason and reality use for a broadside whenever beset with facts that debunk their “righteous demands” for what they usually term “equality.”
For now, all I can think of is that we must begin to attack the word and its use itself. Like any bad grammarical habit, one word has been given a political charge for decades and has morphed to an Owellian level. It reminds me of medieval witch hunts and Soviet style denunciations. What the radical left doesn’t realize is that a totalitarian socialist is just as evil as a Nazi - maybe moreso since more were murdered in communist China and the Soviet Union than in Europe under Hitler. The differnce is that Hitler and his Nazis made no secret of their plans while the communists did all their dirty work either secretly or so far out of reach of the media that no one in effect, knew about it at the time. It is the blind righteousness of the radical left and right that worries me. Historically, neither led to the preservatioo of their own. I hope we can find the third way.
Posted by Whiteplight at 2:15 PM on May 15
“Some want to know why it isn’t racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.”
Because liberal elites say so, that’s why. Because if it isn’t “symbolic racism,” then it’s “white privilege,” or, in the case of this article, “history.”
We all observe liberal double standards and it all seems to come down to this: If it’s white, Western, European, or Christian, it’s considered racist, oppressive and EVIL. If it’s non-white, Third World, subaltern, outcast, and even perverse, it’s considered long-suffering, virtuous, and GOOD. It’s a lovable fuzzy wuzzy psychological teddy bear for liberals. Whites can do no right, non-whites can do no wrong. Black racism doesn’t count as racism, just because. That’s what Ruben Navarrette wants to say. The Wretched of the Earth are encouraged to exploit any weakness and have a feeding frenzy on the West’s decaying backbone.
Navarrette’s 1993 autobiography A Darker Shade of Crimson: Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano, and his syndicated columns point less toward a brilliant young man, and more toward an energetic mediocrity meeting opportunity with mediocre news outlets. He’s custom-made for CNN, The Washington Post, and NPR. Cliched. Nothing original to say. Conformist liberal from the Harvard factory.
Posted by I can't take it anymore at 8:01 PM on May 15
The real question is… Do you want your president to have pink lips or purple lips? Sorry, I’m a girl and I like pink. So, I am casting a ballot for pink lips. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with wardrobe.
Posted by GetBackJack at 8:13 PM on May 15
Why blacks voting for a black isn’t racist?
Because blacks are extradoubleplus good and racism is extradoubleplus ungood, so it would be simply illogical (and, perhaps, non-grammatical) to insists that blacks are racist. Haven’t you read Orwell “1984”?
Posted by A Reader at 1:30 AM on May 16
“Some want to know why it isn’t racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.”
The LMSM made this perfectly “clear” to all Americans decades ago. ‘It’s because blacks can’t be racist, er…because they’re er, black. See? Therefore only whites can be racist.’
Such was, and is, the LMSM’s ongoing brainless and vapid propaganda substitute for dictionary definitions, not to mention correct reasoning.
Posted by Gary at 2:13 PM on May 17
70% of blacks are voting for obama? really? it’s much closer to 100%, the author (navarrette) is soft peddling the numbers because if he told the truth he would lose what little credibility he might have left.
At the end of primary season, Hillary wins 67% of the vote in a state that is 95% white, and suddenly Democracy is in grave danger, and all the MSM talking heads are now concerned that whites might possibly be voting against obama because he is black. Of course over the entire run of primaries when obama was racking up 90+ percent of the black votes, it never occured to the MSM that blacks were voting against Clinton because she is white, or a woman, because it’s OK for blacks to be racist, they are given a free pass on being moral and ethical because of their skin color, that’s racist
the racism in this election is the most blatant example of true racism ever seen in america, ever.
That obama can capture every demographic of the black voter is amazing. Remember that he is running against a woman who has a long history of being very friendly towards blacks, not David Duke. You would at least think Clinton could get a few percent of the black women to vote for her, considering the amount of abuse and suffering they endure at the hands of black men. The only explanation for this type of voter behavior is racism. But Whites are also guilty of racism. There is no doubt that a large percentage of white obama supporters are voting for him simply because of his skin color, and that is racist, and none other than Bill Clinton himself is the best example of the “white guilt faction”, when this year he told a black church in texas “all my life I’ve prayed to be able to vote for a black president”, not a great president, not a brilliant president, just a black president. the only criteria Bill needs is that they be black. that be rassisst!
Why are blacks praised for voting according to their own narrow self-interest while whites are expected to vote according to the “greater good” of society?
whites have proved over and over that they are more than willing to vote for a black candidate, jesse jackson for example won 13 primaries despite being the least qualified person ever to run for president (including Pat Paulson) on the other hand, blacks have elected the likes of the felon marion berry over much better qualified white candidates, and they re-elected ray “hurricane” nagin over much better qualified white candidates. The fact is a black candidate is 1000 times more likely to get elected from a white district than a white candidate is from a black district. blacks vote skin color, whites vote guilty conscience, regardless of consequences
Posted by at 2:18 AM on May 18