Actual Racists for Obama

Early last week, we posted an article from Politico.com titled "Racists for Obama" for our discussion on the Bradley Effect and the shifting lines of prejudice. However, the Bradley Effect hardly compares to what we have found today.

Esquire.com reported yesterday that there are many White Supremacists that are supporting Barack Obama for President. While he notes that it is hardly a scientific poll of the community, author David Peisner includes statements from the different racists.

"I don't hate black people. I just think it's in the best interest of the races to be separated as much as possible. See, I'm a leftist. I'm not a rightist. I hate the transnational corporations far more than any black person" said Tom Metzger, former KKK Grand Dragon and a 1980 Democratic congressional candidate.

Erich Gliebe, Chairman of the National Alliance, told Esquire "Obama might be a better candidate for our cause because he's racially conscious… Young whites in universities, they've been stripped of any kind of racial identity. Obama may be a racist in a positive sense for his people… They'll see that non-white Americans are allowed to be proud of who they are, to be racially conscious, to talk about their people or their community without being attacked as being racist… I don't think McCain even acknowledges that a white race exists. He's all about granting amnesty to illegal aliens."

Rocky Suhayda, Chairman of the American Nazi Party says "we have a black man, who loves his own kind, belongs to a Black-Nationalist religion, is married to a black women -- when usually negroes who have 'made it' immediately land a white spouse as a kind of prize - that's the kind of negro that I can respect. Any time that a prominent person embraces their racial heritage in a positive manner, it's good for all racially minded folks."

In fact, many Klansmen and other white "racially minded" individuals have shifted ideology in recent years to supporting segregation instead of outright hatred of non-whites. But there are still some White Supremacists that disagree.

"Obama, I think he's a piece of sh**" said Ron Edwards, Imperial Wizard of the Imperial Klans of America. "I don't care that his mother was white…I'm going Republican and I talked to my guys and most of them are voting for McCain too."

On the other side of the spectrum, Esquire interviewed a Black Nationalist supporting McCain.

"Finding out Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for president was one of the saddest days in black history. Another legacy of black death is about to begin, just like it began back in the '60s with probably the greatest traitor to black people in modern-day history, Martin Luther King. .. he's not even a black man in the terms of what real black people consider a black man. He's of African and white descent. How easily he dismissed his affiliation with Reverend Wright, was a clear indication that this is a politician, not a man of any real conviction. The same way he threw away that Reverend, once he becomes president, he must throw away black people" said Yahanna, General of the Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge, a black supremacist group that believes those of African decent are part of the lost tribes of Israel.

This goes to show that politics is not nearly as complex and surprising as extreme racists.

Early Voting Troubles?

There has never been such a large push for early voting, as there has been this year—especially by the Obama campaign. And it has undeniably helped his chance to win next Tuesday.

And voting early has never hurt anybody, right? Well apparently in Florida last week an old lady felt threatened enough to call 911 while voting early. In West Palm Beach she went in to vote and felt so threatened by "Obama's thugs" that she called 911 and left. This is just the beginning.

Racism, latent or otherwise, and how it will affect voters at the polls is a big concern this year. Whether it be public demonstrations, disfranchisement at the polls, or threats between supporters.

However, racism is not the only election day anxiety people are facing. Recently Time Magazine wrote an article about the 7 things that could go wrong on election day: Faulty databases, voting machine issues, and “Mickey Mouse” registrants are only a few of many concerns voters have this year.

Obama and McCain’s campaigns are both amassing lawyers by the hundreds to ensure their candidates’ supporters are protected on election day.

Will Democrats Win the 60th Senate Seat Next Year — in Texas? By Kelly Fero, Democratic Strategist, Austin TX

Questions abound as voters in some states cast their ballots and others prepare to go to the polls next Tuesday in what everyone agrees is a groundbreaking election. One of the most urgent is: Will Democrats win a 60-seat filibuster majority in the U.S. Senate?

The short answer might very well be: Yes — but not till 2009. In Texas.

The delicate Democratic majority of 51-49 currently depends on Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a Socialist, and Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, a registered Independent, caucusing with the Democrats. That’s why party leaders are pushing for a nine-seat net gain next week to give Democrats the magic 60 number. And Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’ conviction this week on charges of failing to report more than $250,000 in gifts may have brought that goal even closer.

Today’s average of the most recent polls shows Democrats ahead in eight Senate races, including in Stevens’ Alaska. They are close in two other states.

If Democrats fall a seat short next week, the eyes of the political world will turn to Texas next year, where senior Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is expected to step down early to launch a bid for Governor in the 2010 elections. Her resignation could trigger a special election to replace her for the remainder of her term (which ends in 2012). That special is likely to take place in September 2009 — and be the all-important battle for the Democrats’ sixthieth seat.

Certain to jump into the special election is former state comptroller John Sharp, the state’s leading Democrat. Republicans most often mentioned include curent Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and former Secretary of State Roger Williams.

Stay tuned, because the Democrats’ 60-seat goal could depend on an off-year election in the reddest-of red Lone Star State.

Palin in 2012

Palin has indeed been breaking free of the McCain campaign in recent days. She probably has her doubts as to the success of her ticket this year, and her taste of the national level has probably given her ambition for this stage in the future. That being said – it is unclear whether or not the GOP will take her again.

For starters, she has turned-off the “intellectual” Republicans of the national media. Commentators such as Christopher Buckley, Thomas Friedman, and even Peggy Noonan have decided that her lack of intellect has been a drag on the party and been a major factor towards the anticipated McCain defeat. More important – however – they would not trust her as a future President.

Of course the conservative and populist GOP base adorns her. But will they four years from now? Just as John Edwards – popular among populist Democrats – had difficulty four years after his veep candidacy, Palin will face an uphill battle in 2012. The most important reason will be that they will not see her as electable.

A much more suitable candidate would be Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. Not only is he popular in the Midwest, he agrees with the base on almost all of the conservative issues. While he is not as well known as Palin will be, he will offer a better chance against a President Obama. Other viable options would be Bobby Jindal of Louisiana or Charlie Crist of Florida. Either way, a governor would be the GOP’s best option because of a lack of popularity among Republican Senators.

We would not put our money on a Palin nomination in 2012, although it is certainly conceivable that it is her goal at this point in 2008.

Showdown in Georgia

Pundits are becoming increasingly interested in Georgia this year, as the traditionally red state has been highly targeted by the Obama campaign, has seen record early-voting turnout, and has a competitive U.S. Senate election.

A column on the Huffington Post reported Friday that Obama could pull off an upset in Georgia because of an unusually high expected turnout among African Americans. In 2004, blacks made up about 25% of the voting population in the Peach State, but are expected to make up over 30% of the electorate this year due to the excitement of a black candidate.

The Obama campaign is capitalizing on this excitement. Between January and October, the campaign registered 400,000 new voters - about half of them black. In addition, Obama has seen success in early voting operations there. He is ahead by 6% among early voters - over 18% of the state's electorate. According to Politico today, 35% of early voters have been African Americans.

And Obama's success in Georgia has helped another Democrat on the ticket. Recent Democratic polls show Democrat Jim Martin within striking distance of incumbent GOP Senator Saxby Chambliss, and that is without weighing the higher expected black turnout.

Concerned about those prospects, the RNSC has released tough ads in Georgia characterizing Martin as a super-liberal.



Congressman David Scott (D-GA) of the Atlanta suburbs has not been so fortunate. He is facing a tough re-election against Republican physician Deborah Honeycutt, who has raised nearly $5 million and has been trying to tie Scott to corruption. But Scott, an African American, still has a lead in a traditionally Democratic district.

Of course, the Republicans still have the upper-hand in the Empire State of the South. The Presidential RCP Average has McCain leading Obama by 5.3% in Georgia and the GOP still has a strong Evangelical base to help their 72-Hour Program.

But if the Democrats are able to pull off upsets in Georgia, it will have a serious impact on the American political psyche, demonstrating that progressives can win anywhere with the smarts and effort needed of them - even in the Bible Belt.

Will Palin Meet the Press or Face the Nation?

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol – the same man that called for Sen. John McCain to fire his campaign in a column recently – told Fox News Sunday that Gov. Sarah Palin should appear on a Sunday morning talk show next week.

"I'm told she would be happy to do a TV show, if she hasn't gotten authorization…I hope she breaks free this week," said Kristol.

So far, McCain, Obama, and Biden have all appeared on Sunday morning talk shows, including a McCain appearance on Meet the Press this morning. However, Palin has declined every offer to appear.

What Are the Costs and Benefits of Appearing?

According to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday "this has been a challenge that all serious candidates have always felt they had to meet."

But it is not typically undecided voters who watch these talk shows. There is little-to-no benefit of such an appearance if it will not help win votes.

The potential costs, however, are very real. Palin has not had an impressive record in interviews so far. As mentioned before, she failed to name a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v Wade and defended the claim that she had foreign policy expertise because of Alaska's proximity to Russia during her interview with Katie Couric.

In front of Charles Gibson she failed to give a definitive support or opposition to the Bush Doctrine – quite likely because she was unfamiliar with the term. Most recently, in an interview with a local news station, she said that the Vice President was "in charge of the Senate".



While these interviews did little good for the ticket, they damaged Palin's reputation immensely as these clips from the interviews have been replayed over and over in the media. The risk of Palin making another mistake like the ones we've seen is too great for the McCain campaign to allow a Palin appearance on a Sunday morning talk show. For once, the McCain campaign seems to be making a smart and calculated decision. Perhaps Kristol was wrong about both of his assertions.