Let me make it a bit more clear. There’s nothing wrong with
acknowledging the reality of race and politics, and there’s nothing
wrong with politicians targeting their campaigns and messaging towards
various subgroups.

What the Clinton campaign is doing is saying
that Obama has electability problems, and using their support from
white voters as evidence of that.

Someone, someday, will have to explain this electability thing to me, specifically how come I’m not hearing much on electability in regard to Hillary. Because in my experience there is a problem there coming from the subgroup I’ll call the “I’ve-pretty-much-STFU-and-lost-interest-because-
I’ll-be-balls-to-the-wall-to-kick-that-b%&*h-in-her-nuts” subgroup. I didn’t have to go looking for them because they reared their ugly sleepy head in my own family (again) recently. Yeah the conservative Repub wing of the clan pretty much STFU around 2006 making holiday meals palatable. But last Christmas one word woke the sleeping giant…Hillary. And all sort of nonsense and vitriol came spewing forth. I’d almost forgotten what this conversation was like.

What was different I suppose was my reaction…keep in mind they
hope for “the reaction.” I listened to it all a bit bored and then found myself responding
matter of factly, with no emotion, “I’ll never understand why you guys
still get going on this. I don’t think she’ll be the nominee anyway.”
At that point the eye lids of the refreshed and animated giant grew
heavy, eyes glossed over and gazed forlornly into their Budweisers and
Old Fashioneds. It was over and the giant went back to its slumber…OK
well moved on to talk of the Packers.

There is a subgroup and I’d say a large subgroup that insanely hates
Hillary (evidence of such inA’s post below or just bring her name up
at the next family BBQ). Doesn’t that pose a significant electabilty
question? Placing that side by side to Obama’s race electabilty
question I honestly don’t know which is a greater issue. Maybe we’ll
find out that the soft underbelly of racist hate is greater but …and
just speaking from experience…I find it close to call.

Just saying if we’re going to get real politik and all…

(And just for the record–no subgroup’s hate should preclude the
nomination of a candidate. I’d gladly fight either hate– in other
words–I will support the Democratic nominee)

11 thoughts on “Electability

  1. Hate like that takes time to develop. Obama may get it eventually, but Hillary already has it from them. One sure way to enliven and energize the right wing it to make sure she is the nominee on the left side of things. Sure enough, some of my KNOWN R neighbors crossed over to vote for her so she’d win and McCain could take her to the mat come November. They WANT her in with a hate that is so visceral it can be seen in the air around them. They do not feel that way about Obama, they will stay home Wright faux pas or not. They know McCain’s pastor problems are way the hell worse since ALL of them are Catholics.

  2. I gave up on the very concept when the polling in Iowa showed that we got Kerry because Iowans thought he was more “electable”

  3. One thing about the mention of the Hillary for some of them it is “fun” to bring up Hillary in front of you because of “the reaction” it’s the way that bullies work and how siblings tease each other.
    It’s a “fun” attention getting advice (and by “fun” attention getting I’m talking about how a child acts out to get attention from the parents even if it is negative attention. He might get spanked but he got attention.)
    These people want to engage as sport because they know you will get all excited and then they can pull back, “Hey, can’t you take a joke!?” or “Wow, what is your problem? I just asked you about Hillary you didn’t have to get all defensive.”
    They are live action trolls.
    Now I don’t like to do the same to them. Some people do. These are the people who go over to Free Republic and argue or call up a right wing talk radio host to argue. Good for them. But I don’t want to do that with my family. They, on the other hand, do like to argue.
    The sex thing with Clinton was safe because it was not about getting people killed. And we can’t joke about people dying the same way.
    What if I did to these relatives what they did to you, just for “fun”? How would they respond? How would it make them feel? How would it make ME feel? And most importantly, would there be any movement in viewpoints?
    I did something like this after Nixon resigned. I played the tape of him resigning over and over for them.
    I did a little dance. Guess what? It didn’t feel great because that wasn’t really fun. It was sad.
    If you want to get meta you could ask them, “Why did you bring this up? What is this really about? You know that it would rile us all up? Do you want that? Do we need to have a conversation about that instead of Hillary?”

  4. I certainly agree with you Scout. I find myself segregating myself off from folks who just want to get under my skin. Unfortunately for me, I have recently risen to the bait of those supporters of Sen. Clinton who want to make sure that I know they are way poorer than I ever was or am. I rose to that bait & it took a while to figure out that there was little point to the discourse. It quickly degenerated to who has the boobs & who has the penis. That’s when my eyes glaze over as I reach for the bottle of Rhoades’ Scholar Stout, made by our local South Shore Brewery. I then think about those Star Trek episodes that had androgynous, but sympathetic characters. Then I think of Shemekia Copeland or Anders Osborne & I get over it. But the bottle is empty. Yay, beer.

  5. Dumb question: doesn’t getting the most votes imply the most electability.
    I understand that some will say it is more complicated than that. The groups of people voting in the demo primary is only a subset of those voting in the November election and running against the other demo may be different than running against the repub. I know the superdelegate things started when the popular demo candidate was destined to fail. A primary in a single state represents that state as of a specific date without regard to later events. etc. etc.
    But even looking at all this, it seems that the “electability” and superdelegates should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances. In this year, the optimist in me says we have two extraordinarily good, viable candidates.
    The pessimist says that “electability” could be equated with the ability to “dance with them that brung ya”. And as both candidates are clearly from groups that have traditionally not had equal representation in the Whitehouse, any attempt to overthrow the expressed will of the people in primaries and caucuses, or to change the rules at the last minute, are likely to cause wounds which will NOT easily heal.

  6. wasn’t ‘kerry’ the one for the win? how did THAT ELECTABLE CANDIDATE WORK OUT???
    gee, he’s the nam wvet. how could LURCH LOSE.
    hillary can stuff her electability.

  7. So the “bitch” bumper sticker is beyond the pale (few posts earlier), according to A, but “kick the bitch in the nuts” is okay? It wasn’t a quote, it was a direct phrase written by scout prime. How can you fight that sexist crap if your own writers are perpetuating it?
    Careful of that hyprocrisy…

  8. it was sarcasm…meant to be derisive …directed at Hillary haters

  9. Not good enough – you can’t denounce it, preach about the high road, then use it (actually something more offensive) later and say it was sarcasm…
    No means no. You are perpetuating the problem, regardless.

  10. Apology accepted.
    Hillary may be a lot of things, and I do not support her, but that kind of language cannot be tolerated in a responsible and mature discourse.
    I really like this blog and have been coming here for years.
    Thank you for all your hard work on issues that matter to us all.

Comments are closed.