seriously though, i agree.

the biggest issue that i have been grappling with (as far as my PC discussion of presidential politics in the blogosphere goes) has to do with BHO and the WOT.

In my mind, a black man with some Muslim heritage is inherently better suited to fight the War on Terror in its many manifestations. Can anyone deny that electing BHO would seriously call into question the vision of america which is sold by radical jihadists?

are you bruhrabbit on openleft? if so...

why you been acting so messed up towards me?

Don't try to defend Ferraro with the straw man argument that discussing race is taboo, and you and Ferraro are bravely bringing it up. Turn on cable news, and what do you see? Pundits endlessly discussing Obama and Clinton support among blacks, women and what have you. It's hardly taboo.

What is, and, in my opinion, should be discouraged, are statements of the kind Ferraro made, where she essentially suggests that Obama owes his success (where he is) solely to being black. He doesn't and to say so is insulting to him and the millions of people supporting him. It also plays into the worst kind of right wing frames regarding race and affirmative action.

I have no problem acknowledging identity-based electoral decisions in the positive direction. That is to say, I'll readily admit that many/most AA voters are disposed toward Obama on the basis of racial/cultural identification and that women are disposed toward Hillary on the basis of gender identification. Whether that's good or bad, I'll discuss in a bit.

But, first, I'd like to address a trickier question: how to interpret lack of support during a primary. For instance, are we do conclude that MS white dems are racist just because they overwhelmingly supported Clinton as opposed to Obama? What about latinos in CA and TX? And Asians? Too many people seem to assume that this reflects racially/ethnically-based opposition to Obama, but there may be more complicated explanations.

For instance, as we were discussing in another thread, white southerners may not be inclined to support Obama because they just think other whites are racist and won't support Obama. That is, they themselves don't have a problem with his skin-color, but given the racially polarized environment in which they've lived, they are skeptical (I've encountered this frequently among white dems in SC). Moreover, the Clinton name has powerful resonance among white southern dems (Bill is "Bubba" after all). This is actually another kind of identity politics that never gets discussed (cultural identification, which is far more prevalent and tolerated. It relates to the "who would you like to have a beer with" question). I can think of lots of other alternative explanations, but my point is just to encourage more sophisticated analysis rather than assume the worst.

In any case, I don't think identity politics is inherently irrational or bad, although I'm more likely to consider positive identification acceptable as opposed to identity-based rejection of a candidate (such as pure racist/sexist rejection). Certainly, superficial identification shouldn't be the sole reason for supporting a candidate, or even a compelling reason, but to identify with someone on a superficial level normally permits inferences of deeper shared realities and values. For instance, because Hillary Clinton is a woman, women may rightfully believe that Clinton is more aware of systematic disadvantages that affect women. Hopefully, though, folks will consider lots of other info about the candidate before reaching a conclusion regarding whom to support.

Anyway, I haven't really answered your questions directly, but I just wanted to express some willingness to acknowledge the phenomenon in way that's more constructive.

That said, it's worth noting something about Ferraro's comment. It's true that Obama's heritage and background are an important part of the Obama package. The same is true, however, of Edwards, Clinton, and everyone to some extent. The fact that Obama is bi-racial, multi-ethnic, etc. certainly seems to inform his non-partisan, non-divisive vision. Specifically, because he eludes conventional racial/cultural labels, he is skeptical of labels and rigid categories in general. In short, his genetic and biographical background has unmistakably contributed to his cosmopolitan perspective on things. So, it really makes no sense even to imagine some generic white version of Obama. That would essentially take the ghost out of the machine. To imagine a white Obama is to imagine a completely different person--one who may or may not be a compelling political leader.  

I think it would be equally ridiculous to imagine a male Hillary or a black John Edwards. Because we all find ourselves, for better or worse, in a world where gender, race, religion, culture affect our experiences and perspectives, thought-experiments like Ferraro's yeild more confusion than insight. So, I think her statement was more stupid than offensive.

I'll just say that the way this primary has unfolded has been very disappointing. The large racial disparity and the smaller gender disparity in the vote can't be ignored. I hadn't really expected the magnitude of the former. We have a serious fissure in our party that we're going to have to deal with somehow.

All the white women I know are big Obama fans. They can't stand Hillary. You should here my mom sometimes. And it's not because she's a woman and they're just self-hating women. It's because they feel that she married into her position. If she hadn't married the most talented politician of his generation, there's no way she would be a Senator from New York. If Hillary Clinton stayed exactly who she was, white woman, Yale, Nixon thing, all that, but her name was Hillary Rodham Dukakis, does anybody really believe she'd be where she is right now? She'd be lucky to get into the state senate. And that's not about her biology or her chromosomes, it's about her biography; her life story. So every time she brags about the trips she took as first lady or the experience she got working in her husband's administration, it infuriates women like my mom who actually had to work hard for her position in life and never relied on her spouse or her last name to get ahead. Is that sexist? I dunno...maybe, sorta. But that's the way she feels, and by now I don't think Hillary can say or do anything to change her mind.

An accusation of racism is the trump card that automatically wins any argument.  This is ingrained in our blood as liberals.  So it's very tough to stay cool and have an actual dialogue when you can just play the trump card and win at any point.

It's all about power relationships.  When you're a minority in whatever situation, you're on the down side of that power relationship and you're somewhat dependent on the majority to give you your due.  At least in our liberal universe, being able to cry racism - justifiably or otherwise - is one of the ways to even up that power relationship and even get the upper hand.

I've essentially been on the wrong side of that particular argument during this primary and it's not much fun.  I imagine being a minority and being the target of actual racism isn't much fun, either.  And just as the white majority wasn't exactly inclined to hand over its power without a fight, I doubt the folks who benefit from playing the race card are interested in giving up that tool for as long as it remains effective.  No one wants to disarm unilaterally.

Aside from shifting the balance of power, an accusation of racism can also serve as a defense mechanism to avoid, as this diary suggests, having to grapple with the tough problems of identity.  Some people want to claim there's something wrong with Obama winning 90% of the black vote without digging any deeper and asking: Is this really any different than JFK winning the Irish Catholic vote?  How about all the Jewish votes Joe Lieberman brought to the Democratic ticket in 2000?  Is it the same, or no?  I see little interest in digging below the surface.  It's all about claiming Clinton's supporters are racist or Obama's supporters are reverse racist, all for the sake of a momentary debate edge.

If Obama is the nominee, the general election is likely to present a clash of worldviews.  The media generally subscribes to the liberal view on racial issues, and does so without the slightest hint of nuance or depth, but there are an awful lot of people out there who simply don't buy into that frame.  There's going to be much more of a backlash than we've seen in this primary to date, and I really don't know how it will all turn out.

Some of this applies to sexism as well but there really are enough key differences that it probably ought to be discussed separately.