As a graphic designer I love the identity work that has gone into Obama's campaign. Everything from logos to posters has been exquisitely designed and I would be proud to be a part of a movement with such beautiful imagery alone. But the fortunate truth is that Barack Obama has come forward as a candidate of substance and resolve that has electrified the electorate and has delivered a message of hope that has appeal to a broad range of demographics. But its those same demographics that sparked some thoughts for me so I've decided to put them down here to hear what other like minded individuals think. I'm not even sure this will come out coherently but I figure I should try.
Earlier today, while I was clicking around barackobama.com, I came across the People page and started browsing the logos associated with each of the groups listed (great logos by the way, I love each and every one of them). By the time I got to the bottom of the list it occurred to me that I have no place on the people page. I'm not young or old, black or asian, a woman, gay, religious, disabled, an environmentalist or a republican, part of a union or a student, Jewish, native American, rural, a veteran, Latino or otherwise. I'm an almost 30, middle class, white guy with a steady job in technology who likes cartoons and in most situations I fall into the "other" majority.
When politicians and speech makers list off the roll call of special interest groups and supporters I'm generally content to be part of the "everybody else" sentiment. I grew up the outsider most of the time as the poor, inner-city kid in a largely middle class suburban religious school and have worked to climb out of that poverty and do what I can to give back. I support micro-finance, donate as much as I can afford, and generally try to live a life that does something to improve myself and mankind. And as far as I can tell, I'm not alone in this demographic. There seems to be a good number of well intentioned middle class white guys who don't think its fair that women don't make as much as men, that do judge others by the content of their character, and try their best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
The tricky part is that when there is public discussion and debate about the afflictions and difficulties of all of the different groups that make up this country it seems like the blame is indirectly, and quite possibly unintentionally, directed to the group that doesn't seem to have these problems in the public discourse: my group. This might even be entirely self assigned guilt: it's only in extreme cases that someone comes right out and says that its middle class white men causing all the suffering for others and I tend not to give much credence to extremism of any sort. I'm sure we all as groups of individuals have a hand in some form of prejudice that affects the broader social strata.
However, when I examine a policy like affirmative action I see the playing field being levelled for various groups that are not mine. This leads me to believe that in individual cases amounting to a federally mandated whole that a certain documentable advantage is given to groups that are not middle class white men. Frankly I think the whole situation making these federal mandates is deplorable. The fact that discrimination based on anything but fitness for the job exists is insane. The problem is that it does exist, and equal pay is still a goal and not a reality so I can appreciate the program for its intention but that still makes me think twice whenever I'm chosen for a job or have an application accepted. I have to wonder if I'm enjoying a privelege at someone else's expense. Or if I have been denied an application is it because I have room to improve or was I qualified but did I not fit a federal mandate.
So why am I writing this? Why even bring it up? Frankly its a tough situation to discuss without sounding elitist or racist. But I think I feel somewhat free to bring this up in this forum because we are all at some level like minded individuals. Part of the pride I feel for being part of this movement is that for the most part Mr. Obama and us his supporters seem to be a group of level headed people that are fed up with the current situation and can take a sober look at issues that may seem uncomfortable or unpopular and give them their intellectual due. Mr. Obama did just that with his historic speech on race and to me I feel this topic is part of that discussion. I say discussion because I don't have the answer to the problem, I wish I did. I'm writing this for two reasons:
1. To continue the dialog. I'm only one person and one point of view. I can only write honestly about the way I perceive the world around me and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject. Do you think its even something worthy of debate? Should middle class white men feel any sort of fault or blame for the plight of other groups? Are those feelings justified? Should the portion of us who feel a sense of responsibility to treat humans equally endure silently for the education of the ignorant and the betterment of society? Is there a better way to approach this situation? There's a littany of questions that come to mind, most of which I probably haven't even thought about. Basically I enjoy a lively debate, its a chance to learn.
2. The second reason is that I feel these sentiments might represent a certain portion of swing and moderate Republican voters. Those voters who don't agree with the policies of discrimination but don't necessarily feel directly responsible for it. I think if we can reach out to this class of voter we really can move beyond the devisiveness that has candidates pandering for fringe groups on wedge issues. I support Mr. Obama because if any candidate I've seen in my lifetime can and does show the ability to get beyond the politics of pandering, its him.
So that's my two cents, my two rambling, well meant two cents. Thanks for reading.
Posted 'NATEPERKINS.TV: Black Evangelicals Grassroot Hit The Street of Atlanta's For Barac ...' to blip.tv: http://blip.tv/file/1217647 ireport: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-70870
http://www.nateperkinslive.com
NATEPERKINS.TV: Georgia's Jennifer Brook and Friends Celebrated ...By NATEPERKINS.TV (blog-tv)(NATEPERKINS.TV (blog-tv)) Video thumbnail. Click to play Click to Play. Dear NATE -- Join a Georgia Unite for Change Team I'm excited to announce that today, the Campaign for Change in Georgia is launching our Unite for Change Team program in every county and ...Queen Of Late Night Talk Show... - http://bevsmithatlanta.blogspot.com/
I’m going to go ahead and spend some time writing my own blog tonight. I’m a little irritated. Well, a lot! I got a few bones to pick all with the same theme.
I’m going to go ahead and start with the ignorant bitchasses that keep saying…
“You’re just voting for Obama because he is black!”
I will try and respond to this without cursing or getting angry.Since I’m a factual kinda gal, let’s look at the facts.
I got an email invitation to hear Rahm Emmanuel at the local JCC from the local Obama Jewish Community Leadership Committee. So I went. My older daughter thinks seeing prominent politicians is more exciting that seeing rock stars, so she was all over coming with me.
I was surprised, really, that the crowd was relatively small. A hundred or so? And the only press was the JT News.
I thought Emmanuel was intelligent and articulate. After hearing him speak, my daughters and I made the goal of converting at least one convertible Jewish person we know who is currently supporting McCain over to the side of Obama. Our easiest target’s first: David’s Aunt Debby, who after all is a Democrat at heart. All we need to do is convince her that Obama isn’t a secret enemy of Israel, and I think we’re on board.
One thing I thought was funny: Emmanuel said that the breakdown was on generational lines. When you’re looking at whites and Asians (of any ethnic or religious group, not just Jews), the young people are overwhelmingly on board with Obama; the 35 – 50 year olds are generally OK with him; but those between 50 and 70 really are suspicious. Then, and I think this is interesting – the 80 year olds are like the 18 year olds in terms of their support. What do you think that’s about?
Interesting project
Patchwork Nation
Nearly 305 million people live in the United States, according to the US Census Bureau. Yet in recent elections it’s all been about fitting into two categories: red states that vote Republican and blue states that vote Democratic. But this red/blue breakdown of political opinion doesn’t explain what underpins the voters’ decisions.
That's what this effort, funded by the Knight Foundation, a nonprofit philanthropic organization based in Miami, explores in real time during the 2008 presidential campaign.
We’ve identified 11 places across the US that represent distinct types of voter communities. They are Monied ’Burbs, Minority Central, Evangelical Epicenters, Tractor Country, Campus and Careers, Immigration Nation, Industrial Metropolis, Boom Towns, Service Worker Centers, Emptying Nests, and Military Bastions. For example, Sioux Center, Iowa, typifies Tractor Country.
As the 2008 campaign progresses, the Monitor will write about what issues matter in each of these communities, how the issues affect residents’ votes, and how the candidates tailor their messages to a particular audience.
Here are the demographic highlights from an early West Virginia exit poll. I think this is why Clinton was talking up her winning coalition in that USA Today interview. The problem is that her winning coalition is in West Virginia where there are only 28 delegates to be had. See the full article here.
DEMOGRAPHIC HIGHLIGHTS The West Virginia Democratic electorate notched several demographic extremes among the 31 states with exit polls in competitive Democratic primaries this year: • Roughly 95 percent were white. Only the Democratic primaries in New Hampshire and Vermont and Democratic caucuses in Iowa had that high a proportion of white voters this year. • Four in 10 were over age 60. The only other states with somewhat similar numbers were Arkansas, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma — and Hillary Clinton won all four states. • It was the electorate with the highest proportion — just about seven in 10 — of people who lack a college degree. The same held true for whites without a college degree — again, historically a strong Clinton group. • A little more than half of voters were from rural areas, second only to Vermont for rural voters in Democratic primaries this year. • And the West Virginia electorate was among the bottom five Democratic primaries in terms of income, with more than half reporting 2007 family income of less than $50,000.
DEMOGRAPHIC HIGHLIGHTS
The West Virginia Democratic electorate notched several demographic extremes among the 31 states with exit polls in competitive Democratic primaries this year:
• Roughly 95 percent were white. Only the Democratic primaries in New Hampshire and Vermont and Democratic caucuses in Iowa had that high a proportion of white voters this year.
• Four in 10 were over age 60. The only other states with somewhat similar numbers were Arkansas, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma — and Hillary Clinton won all four states.
• It was the electorate with the highest proportion — just about seven in 10 — of people who lack a college degree. The same held true for whites without a college degree — again, historically a strong Clinton group.
• A little more than half of voters were from rural areas, second only to Vermont for rural voters in Democratic primaries this year.
• And the West Virginia electorate was among the bottom five Democratic primaries in terms of income, with more than half reporting 2007 family income of less than $50,000.
Why I look forward to Sundays: because Frank Rich "speaks"!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/11rich.html?em&ex
May 11, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist Party Like It’s 2008 By FRANK RICH
ANOTHER weekly do-or-die primary battle, another round of wildly predicted “game changers” that collapsed in the locker room.
Hillary Clinton’s attempt to impersonate a Nascar-lovin’, gun-totin’, economist-bashin’ populist went bust: Asked which candidate most “shares your values,” voters in both North Carolina and Indiana exit polls opted instead for the elite and condescending arugula-eater. Bill Clinton’s small-town barnstorming tour, hailed as a revival of old-time Bubba bonhomie, proved to be yet another sabotage of his wife, whipping up false expectations for her disastrous showing in North Carolina. Barack Obama’s final, undercaffeinated debate performance, not to mention the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s attempted character assassination, failed to slow his inexorable path to the Democratic nomination.
“It’s still early,” Mrs. Clinton said on Wednesday. Though it’s way too late for her, she’s half-right. We’re only at the end of the beginning of this extraordinary election year. While we wait out her self-immolating exit, it’s a good time to pause the 24/7 roller coaster for a second and get our bearings. The reason that politicians and the press have gotten so much so wrong is that we keep forgetting what year it is. Only if we reboot to 2008 will the long march to November start making sense.
This is not 1968, when the country was so divided over race and war that cities and campuses exploded in violence. If you have any doubts, just look (to take a recent example) at the restrained response by New Yorkers, protestors included, to the acquittal of three police officers in the 50-bullet shooting death of an unarmed black man, Sean Bell.
This is not 1988, when a Democratic liberal from Massachusetts of modest political skills could be easily clobbered by racist ads and an incumbent vice president running for the Gipper’s third term. This is not the 1998 midterms, when the Teflon Clintons triumphed over impeachment. This is not 2004, when another Democrat from Massachusetts did for windsurfing what the previous model did for tanks.
Almost every wrong prediction about this election cycle has come from those trying to force the round peg of this year’s campaign into the square holes of past political wars. That’s why race keeps being portrayed as dooming Mr. Obama — surely Jeremiah Wright = Willie Horton! — no matter what the voters say to the contrary. It’s why the Beltway took on faith the Clinton machine’s strategic, organization and fund-raising invincibility. It’s why some prognosticators still imagine that John McCain can spin the Iraq fiasco to his political advantage as Richard Nixon miraculously did Vietnam.
The year 2008 is far more complex — and exhilarating — than the old templates would have us believe. Of course we’re in pain. More voters think the country is on the wrong track (81 percent) than at any time in the history of New York Times/CBS News polling on that question. George W. Bush is the most unpopular president that any living American has known.
And yet, paradoxically, there is a heartening undertow: we know the page will turn. For all the anger and angst over the war and the economy, for all the campaign’s acrimony, the anticipation of ending the Bush era is palpable, countering the defeatist mood. The repressed sliver of joy beneath the national gloom can be seen in the record registration numbers of new voters and the over-the-top turnout in Democratic primaries.
Mr. Obama hardly created this moment, with its potent brew of Bush loathing and sweeping generational change. He simply had the vision to tap into it. Running in 2008 rather than waiting four more years was the single smartest political decision he’s made (and, yes, he’s made dumb ones too). The second smartest was to understand and emphasize that subterranean, nearly universal anticipation of change rather than settle for the narrower band of partisan, dyspeptic Bush-bashing. We don’t know yet if he’s the man who can make the moment — and won’t know unless he gets to the White House — but there’s no question that the moment has helped make the man.
For five years boomers have been asking, “Why are the kids not in the streets screaming about the war the way we were?” The simple answer: no draft. But as Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais show in “Millennial Makeover,” their book about the post-1982 American generation, that energy has been plowed into quieter social activism and grand-scale social networking, often linked on the same Web page. The millennials’ bottom-up digital superstructure was there to be mined, for an amalgam of political organizing, fund-raising and fun, and Mr. Obama’s camp knew how to work it. The part of the press that can’t tell the difference between Facebook and, say, AOL, was too busy salivating over the Clintons’ vintage 1990s roster of fat-cat donors to hear the major earthquake rumbling underground.
The demographic reshaping of the electoral map, though more widely noted, still isn’t fully understood. From Rust Belt Ohio through Tuesday’s primaries, cable bloviators have been fixated on the older, white, working-class vote. Their unspoken (and truly condescending) assumption, lately embraced by Mrs. Clinton, is that these voters are Reagan Democrats, cryogenically frozen since 1980, who come in two flavors: rubes who will be duped by a politician backing a gas-tax pander or racists who are out of Mr. Obama’s reach.
Guess what: there are racists in America and, yes, the occasional rubes (even among Obama voters). Some of them may reside in Indiana, which hasn’t voted for a national Democratic ticket since 1964. But there are many more white working-class voters, both Clinton and Obama supporters, who prefer Democratic policies after seven years of G.O.P. failure. And there is little evidence to suggest that there are enough racists of any class in America, let alone in swing states, to determine the results come fall.
As the Times columnist Charles Blow charted last weekend, Mr. Obama’s favorable and unfavorable ratings from white Democrats are both up 5 points since last summer in the Times/CBS poll — a wash despite all the hyperventilating about Mr. Wright and Bittergate. (By contrast, Mrs. Clinton’s favorable rating among black voters fell 36 points while her unfavorable rating rose 17.) Gallup last week found that after the Wright circus Mr. Obama’s white support in a matchup against Mr. McCain is still no worse than John Kerry’s against President Bush in 2004.
But this isn’t 2004, and the fixation on that one demographic in the Clinton-Obama contest has obscured the big picture. The rise in black voters and young voters of all races in Democratic primaries is re-weighting the electorate. Look, for instance, at Ohio, the crucial swing state that Mr. Kerry lost by 119,000 votes four years ago. This year black voters accounted for 18 percent of the state’s Democratic primary voters, up from 14 percent in 2004, an increase of some 230,000 voters out of an overall turnout leap of roughly a million. Voters under 30 (up by some 245,000 voters) accounted for 16 percent, up from 9 in 2004. Those younger Ohio voters even showed up in larger numbers than the perennially reliable over-65 crowd.
Good as this demographic shift is for a Democratic ticket led by Mr. Obama, it’s even better news that so many pundits and Republicans bitterly cling to the delusion that the Karl Rove playbook of Swift-boating and race-baiting can work as it did four and eight years ago. You can’t surf to a right-wing blog or Fox News without someone beating up on Mr. Wright or the other predictable conservative piñata, Michelle Obama.
This may help rally the anti-Obama vote. But that contingent will be more than offset in November by mobilized young voters, blacks and women, among them many Clinton-supporting Democrats (and independents and Republicans) unlikely to entertain a G.O.P. candidate with a perfect record of voting against abortion rights. Even a safe Republican Congressional seat in Louisiana fell to a Democrat last weekend, despite a campaign by his opponent that invoked Mr. Obama as a bogeyman.
A few conservatives do realize the game has changed. George Will wrote last week that Mr. Obama was Reaganesque in the stylistic sense that “his manner lulls his adversaries into underestimating his sheer toughness — the tempered steel beneath the sleek suits.” John and Cindy McCain get it too, which is why both last week made a point (he on “The Daily Show,” she on “Today”) of condemning negative campaigning. But even if Mr. McCain keeps his word and stops trying to portray Mr. Obama as the man from Hamas, he can’t disown the Limbaugh axis of right-wing race-mongering. That’s what’s left of his party’s base.
Now that the Obama-Clinton race is over, the new Beltway narrative has it that Mr. McCain, a likable “maverick” (who supported Mr. Bush in 95 percent of his votes last year, according to Congressional Quarterly), might override the war, the economy, Bush-loathing and the bankrupt Republican brand to be competitive with Mr. Obama. Anything can happen in politics, including real potential game changers, from Mr. McCain’s still-unreleased health records to new excavations of Mr. Obama’s history in Chicago. But as long as the likely Democratic nominee keeps partying like it’s 2008 while everyone else refights the battles of yesteryear, he will continue to be underestimated every step of the way.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Change works for Barack Obama. Americans do want change; even John McCain embraces the concept. Do you know anyone who wants things to stay just the way they are? Did you ever eat or drink something, without knowing how it's made, and realize it took special treatment to make it taste that way? Sometimes when people talk about wine, they say the taste is "complex." Makers of snack crackers know that a combination of different flavors offering salt and sweet make people want their products. Formulations for best-selling products can get bewilderingly complex.The "mix" in the United States is changing. Confounding tradition, the U.S. has been complicated from the beginning. Yet most Americans would probably say they have an understanding of certain things about the U.S. and the people living there. Not so fast. Americans wanting change may not be aware of the ways the U.S. has already changed, which in turn transforms what it takes to get elected this year.
Read more
Carole
When Hillary Clinton touted the idea that she leads Barack Obama in support from "hard-working Americans, white Americans," I felt much the same as I've felt every other time some campaign hack tries to plant the notion that white, working class voters aren't amenable to a black presidential candidate. That is to say, "why do you insist that people like me are racist?"
I am a white man, raised in a conservative white evangelical church, born to a traditional family. A large portion of my heritage is sown from the sweat and dust of farmland in places like Kansas, upstate New York and southeastern Pennsylvania. I work hard too, like those people Senator Clinton claims to have in her hip pocket. I'm look just like one of those people Ed Rendell might have been referring to when he warned that some white people might not be willing to vote for a black candidate.
But that's not who I am. And that's not who many of the other people I know are. I feel cheated by the media and pollsters who insist that Barack Obama only appeals to minorities and highly educated or affluent whites. I am none of those, either. I, and many of my blue-collar friends, are just people for whom Washington doesn't work. And we'd like to see that change.
Four years ago, John Edwards spoke of two Americas. That refrain resonated with me, the idea that we shouldn't be divided. The idea that we should actually try to emulate that first part of our nation's title: "United."
Yet it seems as if the cynicism of old-style politics would have the proverbial two Americas splintered into twenty Americas. And when things aren't going well for anyone but the wealthiest among us, that splintering becomes even easier. People like me - who work hard, who worry about what might happen if we get sick or injured and are unable to work, who wonder how much harder it could possibly get to buy the things we need - we feel a strain. It's human nature to want to pin the blame for our problems on others, and when politicians, pundits and media figures tell us lies about who's to blame, it's just that much easier to believe them.
And that's why the only candidate in this year's presidential race for me was Barack Obama. I heard a voice in the barren wilderness of American politics telling anyone who would listen that we - the people, not the lobbyists, PACs and corporations - could not only see a change in the way things are done, but that we could actually be a meaningful part of it. In fact, the only way it would work was if we got off the sidelines and became part of it.
So I did. As did many other people. And I'd bet there's more than few others just like me, the kind of people Hillary Clinton and her surrogates in the campaign and the media have insisted Barack Obama can't reach. But his message reached me, and it reached 1.5 million other Americans (and counting).
In these cynical times, a message of hope and unity may seem risky. There are those who are afraid to risk a positive message, because they think it won't sell. Many others say it can't sell - but those voices are mostly led by the corrupt interests who have the most to lose when everyday Americans buy into a message of hope, unity and empowerment. And it's up to us to sell that message. Can we pull it off? Three words answer that question:
YES WE CAN
I'm sick of the demographics!
Regardless of who we support, regardless of what we look like, I think we can all agree that the media's obsession with race and gender in this election has gotten out of control. So, if anyone reads this and has Facebook, I have created the group "I Vote Independent of My Race or Gender." My hope is that a significant number of people join this group, to show by numbers that this election is about much, much more than the overly simplistic demographic breakdowns the mainstream media has been focused on throughout this election.
So, join, invite your friends (Obama and Clinton supporters...), and make some noise to show that we're sick of this kind of political theater.
It's time to focus on the issues.
Pennsylvania is an important state. We need everyone (inside and outside of PA) to continue working hard to get the truth out about the Obama campaign.
Here are a few facts about PA's demographics and facts:
PA Racial Demographics
Source: National Journal Pennsylvania Democrat Poll
Clinton 49% (NOW) 52% (Feb. 14)
Obama 43% (NOW) 36% (Feb. 14)
Source: Quinnipiac University
PA Election Facts:
OK, hang with me on this one.
Last night our family was watching "Lost". During a commercial break, an Obama for President commercial (actually a very good one) came on. I made the comment that I thought it was interesting that they chose to air a commercial during "Lost" - that it must have something to do with the demographics they were targeting.
Carter, my 17 year old son, responded immediately "Yes, Obama's demographics - EVERYONE!"
How accurate - and wonderful!
Work hard this weekend - call - attend events - get ready to vote (if you have not done so already) and caucus on Tuesday.
My wife voted today - long lines in Collin County!
