I'd like to use this diary to advance a theory, one that I've become more and more convinced of as this primary season has turned:

No Democratic African-American can win the Whitehouse until the Civil Rights Generation is dead.

Now, I know this is going to seem controversial and downright offensive to some, but hear me out; if the normal resentments of African-Americans who lived through the civil rights movement are seen as anti-white racism, a belief that appears to be prevalent even in supposedly progressive forums such as this, then until the people who have flesh and blood ties to those resentments (justified though they may be) are in the ground, no African-American can run without either cutting off the Black Community (see; what Powell or Rice would have had to do) or being tied to it to his or her detriment.  Given the fact that African-Americans are the most loyal and crucial voting block for Democrats, such diassociation is impossible for an up-and-coming African-American Dem, only in the GOP would the necessary distance be an achievable goal (see: Watts).  

If one accepts my premise (and please provide some counter-examples I would love to be wrong, please show me an African-American Dem who has been elected to high office and could not be tarred in a manor, similar if not equal to Obama- Patterson ties into Harlem, and Ford into Memphis both are scions of long holding clans, Booker is a product of a machine that makes Chicago look clean), then one is left with confirmation of my thesis, and the question of what we can do to change these apparent facts on the ground, before I give my response please understand that this is not a recommendation that I take pleasure in giving.

** African-Americans need to vote for the GOP**
This sounds insane I realize, but there's a reason that Reagan Dems are getting all this respect- parties don't like loyalty, loyalty gets you nothing, to be given real respect they need to fear you, and nothing would give African Americans more power than to vote as a Block for John McCain this year-- you think the Media wants to pander to Reagan Dems, watch how hard the GOP tries to actually keep your vote, heck you don't even need to do a thought experiment look at latino's Bush was willing to chuck his base under a bus in a heartbeat just in order to maintain rough parity in latino votes, his most loyal peeps called him "Jorge Bush" and nicknamed the GOP Nominee "Juan McCain" (note: I said the nominee, see the GOP base couldn't deliver, and so they were willing to piss them off, the Democratic Party right now treats African-Americans the same way, they don't think they'll do anyhting so who cares if the consistently piss them off).

There's been a lot of talk lately about how Obama must demonstrate appeal to White, Blue-Collar voters, and while I would agree that this is a legitimate concern, it is also one that Obama has counters for (Wisconsi, Minnesotea, Virgina, Iowa, etc), what I feel is  a far more pressing concern is Hillary's Republicanesque numbers among the African-American vote (she draws less AA votes by percentag, than Goerge Bush did in 2000).

Given Rep. Clyburn's recent remarks on the betrayal felt  by many in the African-American community, and the fear among SDs that these remarks may prove to be prophetic, it becomes clear that if Hillary is to have any hope of becoming the Democratic Nominee she must demonstrate at least some crossover appeal among Obama's demographics. Given the current state of the race the only opportunity remaing for Hillary to demonstrate that she can win over the necessary support of the Democratic Party's most loyal base is in North Carolina, given this her decision to let the last major state in the contest go is puzzling to say the least and is quite possibly a fatal mistake(in terms of Delegates North carolina is more significant thatn NJ or MA, but for some reason Hillary is allowing it to go to Obama virtually without protest).  

So I ask you8 my fellow readers, why has the media ignored the fact that NC is essentially a must win for Hillary Clinton, in order to chase the story of Obama needing to shore up support among BLue-Collar Whites?

Given the efficacy of Sean Hannity in shaping the agenda for the Clintonistas on here and the supposedly Obama-leaning MSM (see: Wright, Ayers, etc.) I watched H&C last night to try and find out what tomorrow's smear will be, the conclusion--- Obama attended the Million Man March!

Now, before I get to the meat of this smear, I need to point out that Hannity read Obama's comments on the March, brought on one of the right's patented minority commentators who hate on their own group (see: Malkin, Michelle) in this case Ward Connerly and then got shutdown as Connerly actually agreed with virtually all of Obama's analysis of the March. Obama in 1995 did what he's been doing all along, calling out the fringes of both sides and criticizing some speakers at the MMM for fomenting racial hatred and division, he then called for AAs to lift themselves up, Hannity of course read this in a tone which suggested Obama was calling out the "white Devil" which made it pretty hilarious when his handpicked AA sockpuppet said Obama was prescient.

The meat of this smear seems to be that Obama attended the Million Man March, Wright attended the Million Man March, Farrakhan was a sponsor of the Million Man March, and thus Obama agreed with everything Farrakhan or anyother speaker said at the March (yes, I realize that this smear directly contradicts what Obama actually said about the march at the time but hey intellectual consistency has never been Hannity's strong suit he makes Rush look like Mencken and O'reily like O'Rourke). The obvious subliminal hint is that Obama is Black and will invade the capital with those scary people (probably make "Who Shot Ya" into the new national anthem and replace "Hail to the Chief" with "Big Pimpin'" -- though I doubt conservatives have ever heard "Who Shot ya").

And so I'm left with the question how long until the first diaries begin to appear denoucnign Obama for attending the Million Man March?

On Brit Hume's Flagtastic Election center, they've been asking how much "racial prefernece" effects black canidates, and their go to guy was RNC (chair?) Michael Steele, who said soemthing that was both unfortunately true, and perhaps a career killer:

" When i ran for the Senate in Maryland I discounted 20% of my base because they simply wont vote for a black man."  

I'm a bit shocked, I mean isn't this the sort of thing that ends careers (I would hope its not true to this marghin on our side, I'd think its around 10% of dems that wont ever vote for a black uy) he basically said that 1/5 of the GOP is out and out cross-bruning stlye racists.

I honestly have a question for all of the people posting Obama hit diaries that are premised on his lack of electability; what do you suggest we do?

I'm being serious, because if Obama is unelectable than so is Hillary, just because Obama is torn down doesn't mean Hillary is lifted up (in the general), notice that while she has risen relative to Obama in the last week she has fallen even father behind McCain (indeed, even post-Wright she trails McCain by a larger margin).

The argument seems to be that since Obama is undefined this episode smears him, and nothing will stick to Hillary because she's already been defined, let us suppose this is true (I don't belioeve either portion but for the sake of argument): I again ask how does this make Hillary electable, if the impression of her is set in stone then she is never going to win, the majority in the country (according to the latest polling) view her as untrustworthy and as person who neither cares about them nor shares their values. And so I ask how do you think that a person who the majority of Americans view as a sociopahtic liar (its untrue, but as her supporters state she has fought the right for 15 years, what they don't add is that she has by and large lost that fight-- she isn't her Husband she doesn't have his Charisma or likability), especially against a man that the same majority views as a straight talking war hero. Remember, you have all argued that the press is biased against Hillary, and this is probably true, so I ask you if she has a negative image, and its set, and the press is against her by what logic can she beat a man the press loves (more than they love any politician I have ever seen), who has an incredible image and story, and who is viewed as a paragon of the very quality (integrity) that Hillary lacks?

If instead you are arguing that we should choose a third canidate, then by all means go ahead, I and many others will listen to you, indeed you may have a very good point.

I think we should just go ahead and be honest, any major black politician in the Democratic party today is likely to have ties or associations to a Pastor like Wright. Given that can we just go ahead and admit that there wont be a Black Presidential Canidate with crossover appeal on our side until the Civil rights generation dies off.

Once we go ahead an realize that I think we should also realize that it would be wise for any smart ambitious African-American politician to join the GOP, as in the Democratic party the only way to rise is through the Black Church structure (lets be real outside of the inner city a Black man will not win the Democratic primary). I think that unless we wait half a century or so, the first Black President (unless Obama pulls it out) will certainly be a Republican, and in the end thats probably fitting given that they are the party of Lincoln.

As a final thought, its ironic to note that if we applied the same standards to whites that we do to Blacks, Clinton wouldn't even be a canidate, what with Bill's mentor being Fullbright a member in Good Standing of the George Wallace wing of the party.

Ok I was flipping through the channel and I saw the Factor and Bill was going off along with guest Laura Ingrahm on the danger of the Black community, and asking why there is this distrust there of the white community. Basically Bill was talking about how Black radicalism scares white people and Laura was asking why a Preacher would give voice to this mistrust of America, and all of the sudden it hit me-- These people are engaging in a massive case of projection-- all of it the smears of Wright and Obama, the hatred of Hillary for not being a fembot, its all a giant fucking (I will edit if asked) case of projection.

Think about it what is the one defining feature of the modern Republican party (and indeed all reactionary/conservative movements)-- a distrust of outsiders, of change, of things being different. That's why they hate Obama (uh yeah the diffenerence is apparent), both of the Clintons (outsiders), Carter, etc.  

Not just because they were agents of change (though that was bad enough) but because they were from outside the system-- note: If you advocate violent change from postions within the system you're hated even more, after all the only worse than a infidel is a heretic (see the continued efforts to disparage the ultimate traitor FDR).  You can see this hatred for the outsider in the way they treated Kerry prior to the Swift Boats Stuff (the ultimate heretic a warrior who doesn't want to fight anymore), it down right cordial compared to the visceral hatred they have for Obama and Hillary (Obama, they could tolerate as long as they could pretend he was one of the token Blacks like Rice or Thomas-- the uneasy relationship and eventual ostracization of Powell is due to the fact that he was never totally "their man") . Contrast that with the treatment that Dean recieved in 04 or Edwards this year. This shared hatred of the unknown is what allows such disparate interest to unite at election time however shattered they may have previously appeared.

As a final note, the hatred for the outsider is so strong that the Fundies despite being the largest portion of the party get little more than lip service (notice the first fundie prez, was the ultimate insider, and that a far more faithful evangelical--following the economic as well as the social aspects of the faith, was viewed with disdain despite the fact that he was clearly, clearly the best politician in their party; I'm sorry but Huckabee while a nutter was the most likable politician on the surface that I have ever seen.).

P.S. Oh, the best proof I've yet seen Bill just brought on Santorum to call an Obama supporter (supposedly, at this point I think Obama basically is blamed for every Black person on earth) a religious whacko!

I have just finished commenting in the umpteenth diary this primary season that cited right-wingers to make points against Obama. This phenomenon, has gone from being hillariously insane (SusanHu citing Debbie Schlussel), to just sad (witness this weekend's rally round Pat friggin' Buchannon) to downright offensive (today's diary citing accessory to war crimes Bill Kristol) to outright frightening (the citation of White Natalist site V.Dare- though this was thankfully removed after it was pointed out to the author).  Frankly, the cognitive dissonacance that enables some of the Hill supporters to do this is in a way impressive; remember in many cases these are the same people who are staging a reasonably justified boycott of the Daily Kos (but feel free to turn MYDD into a hybrid of Freerepublic and Stormfront), yet I beseech that they and the more ardent Obama supporters (including myself in some cases) quit doing this; quit citing scum.

Please these are the same people (edit: the people who are being quoted not the diarists themselves) who called Hillary a lesbian and Bill a rapist, the same people who view Vince Foster's suicide as a hit, the same people who injected terms like Mena, and Travelgate into the national lexicon, and frankly accepting there smears of Obama only lends credence to those who would do us and our Republic itself, harm. In closing I would like to pose a question, do you believe the stuff they wrote in the 1990s- was Hillary a murderous lesbian who stuck by her sexual predator of a husband solely for political power; and if not why do you believe them now?