|
-- tips@phblend.com
PHB Mobile
33|175:175
| Best of the Blend |
|
Blog Posts
Special Events and Interviews
| Blend-o-licious endorsements... |
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego)."Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"
|
Support the Blend
|
|
An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.
|
Tue May 20, 2008 at 20:30:00 PM EDT
|
Hillary Clinton easily breezed by Barack Obama in the Kentucky primary, bolstered again by working-class, less educated whites who made their decision to vote for her based on their unwillingness to vote for a black person. Another sad day in America.Race played a decisive role in Hillary Rodham Clinton's lopsided victory in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary in Kentucky, the latest contest to emphasize how fierce her rivalry against Barack Obama has become among the party's voters.
...Seven in 10 whites overall backed Clinton in Kentucky, including about three quarters of those who have not completed college. That made Tuesday's contest one of her stronger performances yet with those blue-collar white voters - little surprise considering Kentucky has one of the country's highest proportions of people who are not college graduates. How much does prejudice factor into this? The Bluegrass State is living in another time, where Negroes knew their place -- and one of those places was certainly not on a ballot running for president.
* About one in five whites said race played a role in choosing a candidate;
* Nine in 10 of that group backed Clinton -- the highest proportion yet among the 28 states where that question has been asked in exit polls;
* Only three in 10 whites who said race was a factor said they would vote for Obama should he oppose McCain in November;
* Nearly four in 10 said they would back McCain, while the rest said they wouldn't vote.
These results in Kentucky (and West Virginia) neatly fit David Sirota's theory of the Race Chasm. He originally pointed out the fascinating slice of statistics for In These Times. See the graph and a snippet below the fold. |
| Pam Spaulding :: Clinton wins Kentucky, race chasm proven again |
Dave wrote this in March, so races after that aren't included, but all of the subsequent primaries followed the same pattern: On the left of the graph, among the states with the smallest black population, Obama has destroyed Clinton. With the candidates differing little on issues, this trend is likely due, in part, to the fact that black-white racial politics are all but non-existent in nearly totally white states. Thus, Clinton has fewer built-in advantages. Though some of these states like Idaho or Wyoming have reputations for intolerance thanks to the occasional militia headlines, black-white interaction in these places is not a part of people's daily lives, nor their political decisions. Put another way, the dialect of racism-the hints of the Ferraro comment and codes of Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson reference, for instance-is not politically effective because such language has not historically been a significant part of the local political discussion. That's especially true in the liberal-skewed Democratic primary.
On the right of the graph among the states with the largest black populations, Obama has also crushed Clinton. Unlike the super-white states, these states-many in the Deep South-have a long and sordid history of day-to-day, black-white racial politics, with Richard Nixon famously pioneering Republican's "southern strategy" to maximize the racist segregationist vote in general elections. "But in the Democratic primary the black vote is so huge [in these states], it can overwhelm the white vote," says Thomas Schaller, a political science professor at the University of Maryland-Baltimore. That black vote has gone primarily to Obama, helping him win these states by big margins.
It is in the chasm where Clinton has consistently defeated Obama. These are geographically diverse states from Ohio to Oklahoma to Massachusetts where racial politics is very much a part of the political culture, but where the black vote is too small to offset a white vote racially motivated by the Clinton campaign's coded messages and tactics. The chasm exists in the cluster of states whose population is above 6 percent and below 17 percent black, and Clinton has won most of them by beating Obama handily among white working-class voters.
In sum, Obama has only been able to eke out victories in three states with Race Chasm demographics, where African-American populations make up more than 6 percent but less than 17 percent of the total population.
When I read his piece earlier, I was taken aback at how obvious this all is, and how the results are so consistent. It says a lot about the racial dynamics and history in this country over time -- the results of unresolved conflict, self-segregation/lack of interaction and racially motivated voting has presented us with a serious opportunity to discuss and slice and dice what we are seeing here.
I wonder if an intelligent discussion can now be had about the reality of prejudice versus affinity voting. When the MSM continually frames this chasm as a problem for Obama -- it is a problem for all of us as a society. To have a whole demo of voters so poisoned by their own racism to vote for someone white simply to avoid casting a ballot for a person of color is sad. To then be willing to stay home in November or worse, vote for John McCain, who clearly doesn't represent working class interests, is tragic.
Needless to say that's the polar opposite of what I've called affinity voting -- blacks voting for Obama in large numbers. Many are voting for him because he represents ideals and policies they agree with; that he's the first credible, positive black candidate for president is a huge historical bonus. Those who say this is some sort of race bloc voting are not seeing this clearly -- as I've mentioned before, if race alone was the deciding factor, we would have seen Alan Keyes or Cynthia McKinney racking up some serious vote totals. Black voters have been the most reliable voter base for the Democratic party regardless of the race of the candidate. That the party has spent so much time chasing this close-minded voting block of working class whites, even touting them, is kind of sad (or enraging, depending on your POV). |
|
|
