 |
|
|
|
Visit our sponsorsFill up our coffee fundBlogAdsMost EmailedVisit our sponsorsUpcoming events
 |
Get our Digestifs du jourNibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
culturekitchensThe Publisher Daily servings of political dissent Grassroots News and Feminist Bloggers A new kind of vouyerism Art + Code + Philosophy Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP. Hot Topics
Member's articles and stories
Recent reviews
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 1819 guests online.
|
Words to live byBut, when it came down to, this case was made into a racial issue, which it shouldn't have been. It should have been an issue about a woman who was raped by three men. Case closed. The fact that she was black and they were white only plays into the fetishization of Black women and white men that has developed through years of inequal treatment. This also biased many people because it made this case into a national spectacle. It split people along racial lines instead of factual lines and investigating the story that the woman told instead of going on a witch hunt. Additionally, this case was turned into an issue of class as well. The Black, poor woman was raped by the rich white kids. Many wanted to see these men be charged because they felt it would put them in their rightful place, strip them of the privilege that they had been so accustomed to all of their lives. All of the things that this case stood for are all of the things that were wrong with the media's coverage of the case, the national obsession with the case, and the prosecution of the case. It became an issue of stripping privilege and proving that white people were not superior instead of ensuring that this woman was actually treated properly and had her CORRECT assailants brought to justice, not for political reasons but for criminal reasons. Subscribe Buttons                    | |
The Black Vote
Bear in mind that Obama was not speaking on the campaign trail, he was speaking in church at a pulpit. What did you think he was going to speak about in church, fishing? The video of Obama's speech is up at youtube, just go there and type "barack obama selma" in the search window.
The more pertinent question in my mind is why wasn't John Edwards in Selma? The Washington Post/ABC poll of african american voters shows Obama 44% Clinton 33% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR200702...)
Events like this weekend will only draw those numbers up further, which isn't good for the other candidates when already nearly 80 percent of african american voters are supporting one of two candidates. African american voters make up majorities of the democratic primary voters in some southern states like alabama and south carolina and decisive minorities in others. I'd think it highly unlikely that any democrat can win the party's nomination with what could be substantially less than twenty percent of the black vote if the poll numbers are accurate. This adds up to Edwards should have IMO been in Selma this weekend. The New York Times and papers all over the country have pictures on the front page of Obama and Clinton walking over the Pettus bridge in Selma among all the african american leaders. If Edwards campaign staff was smart, they would have had him there. Hillary knew she had to be there once Obama was going down, and she was, right there on the bridge next to John Lewis. With Bill. It was a smart political move. The national poll numbers quoted among democrats in that post/abc poll I linked to above have:
Clinton 36%
Obama 24%
Gore 14%
Edwards 12%
Undecided 11%
When you are running behind someone who is not even in the race and neck and neck with undecided, you don't need to be missing important photo ops that resonate with important demographics. Btw, as that story reports, when they take Gore out of the mix, the numbers are:
Clinton 43%
Obama 27&
Edwards 14%
So its not like all those Gore supporters are closet Edwards supporters. I really like Edwards' ideas but he is trying to run from the left as the most liberal candidate out there and the liberals don't seem to be going for him. Liberals like enfranchisement and would seem more likely to be the ones most open to making history by nominating a woman or minority. Maybe Edwards made a strategic error, and should have been running to the right of Hillary as opposed to the left? If he can't count on the african american vote, after all, how is he going to win as the most liberal candidate?