Rasmussen's first Oregon poll: Obama by 12

Rasmussen Reports has released its first poll in Oregon for the 2008 presidential race:

The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Oregon Democratic Presidential Primary shows Barack Obama enjoying a twelve-point lead over Hillary Clinton. It’s Obama 51%, Clinton 39%.

Clinton has a statistically insignificant lead among senior citizens while Obama leads among younger voters. Obama does best among upper income voters while Clinton’s strongest support comes from those who earn less than $40,000 annually.

That lead is twice as large as the 6-point lead in a SurveyUSA poll released earlier this week.

Details here. Discuss.

  • Mr. Music (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm actually slightly disappointed his lead isn't even bigger. I was hoping for 20+

  • fava bean (unverified)
    (Show?)

    don't get too excited. Rasmussen is notoriously Obama-biased, and understated Clinton's PA lead by a full five percentage points. SurveyUSA is much more reliable and should be trusted over Rasmussen.

  • chris from Oregon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Fava, Lol, you don't know anything about Oregon. I'm an Oregonian, which is one of the most progressive leading states, period.In the last general election, Portland voted 75% for Kerry, higher than any other area. I am confident in betting you that his margin will be at least 10%. Also, our number one issue is the environment, and Clinton's tax holiday is being shouted down in Oregon. Don't lose sleep for Hillary over Oregon.

  • ally (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here in Southern Oregon, we've had two wonderful endorsements of Barack Obama by our local newspapers in the past 24 hours. Yesterday it was the Mail Tribune in Medford, and today, the Ashland Daily Tidings. (The papers' web addresses are mailtribune.com and dailytidings.com) Go Obama!!

  • ally (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Following up on Chris's comment above, I just read that Friends of the Earth has endorsed Obama, in part because of the gas tax issue.

  • (Show?)

    Here's a useful website, especially for arguments about polls. He uses an aggregate of local polls, rather than national polls, and the numbers are all included.

    http://www.electoral-vote.com/

    Nothing much on Oregon yet, but keep an eye on it after Tuesday.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Rasmussen is a reputable polling organization with a good rep. They have nailed a number of elections pretty well in the past, both nationally and here in Oregon. This is in the ball park. And an encouraging note on the day we receive our mail-in ballots. A mark of the Obama organization, on the day I receive my ballot,an Obama canvasser is at the door.

  • Logan Gilles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama won't win by 20, but he will win by more than 10. I think the Rasmussen poll is better on this race.

  • KJBEugene (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Just got my ballot today and it'll be in a drop box downtown on Monday. I also got a very nice young woman at my door canvasing for Obama about an hour ago. Kudos for his organization; they really get things done.

    Based on what I've seen and heard, I'll say this poll is accurate. He'll win by at least 10%.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Interesting column here in NY Times- A Backlash?- Charles Blow http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03blow.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    "By CHARLES M. BLOW Published: May 3, 2008

    Since January, the Clintons have pummeled Barack Obama with racially tinged comments and questions about his character..... The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.

    On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

    While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways.

    If Hillary Clinton should defy the odds (and the current math) and secure the nomination, she would be hard-pressed to defeat John McCain without the enthusiastic support of black voters, stalwarts of the Democratic base.

    Getting that support could now be tricky. "

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Twelve points? Why so close? I thought Oregon was a progressive state.

    Here in the Potomac region, Hillary never got even a sniff of a 12 point defeat. I'm very proud of Maryland, Virginia and D.C. for Barack's resounding victory on both sides of the river. Here's hoping there's still time for Oregon to join in and make a statement to Ms. Iraq War Supporter: If you want to compare John McCain's foreign policy track record favorably to that of Barack Obama, then quit your own campaign and work for McCain's. Otherwise, shut up and let a real progressive take what the pledged delegates are prepared to give him.

  • avwrobel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For all of you Obama crazed people out there, first of all, God bless all Democrats. When Hillary wraps up the nomination minority and progressive voters will be reminded of the Clintons' lifetime of powerful advocacy of equal and civil rights, and will gladly vote for her. We cannot afford the risk of Obama losing the general election, mainly due to the Bradley Effect (google it). Besides, Hillary is simply the stronger candidate, which you fine folks in Oregon will learn after Tuesday and she makes many appearances there. You all won't believe how great she is in person. Go BlueOregon!

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    yeah! what avwrobel said! it's the bill bradbury effect! wherein a highly qualified progressive loses to a conservative republican posing as a moderate! ignore it at your peril, you oregon obamatrons! and yes, google IS my friend, so there!

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    on a lighter note:

    If Hillary Clinton should defy the odds (and the current math) and secure the nomination, she would be hard-pressed to defeat John McCain without the enthusiastic support of black voters, stalwarts of the Democratic base.

    Getting that support could now be tricky.

    um.

    ya think?

    you can count on the new york times - whose motto is "i must hurry and catch up with the others for i am their leader..."

  • (Show?)

    Charles M. Blow!? Really?? Wow. I've got a friend in Eugene who collects names -- she's got some doozies from English Civil War Puritans in the 1600s, I'll have to draw her attention to this.

    When I saw his name in all caps I skipped over at first, thinking is was sort of stupid sarcasm thing.

    And yet, he's made it to the NYTimes -- call it the "boy named Sue effect"?

    <hr/>

    Say, avwrobel, trying to give the Bradley effect a little boost up in case it doesn't kick in sufficiently on its own, are we?

    Yup, don't vote for the black guy because other people might not vote for the black guy. Just like the reason we don't want black folks moving into the neighborhood isn't that we're racist, it's just that the property values will go down.

    Back in the 1960s in Boston there were (white) guys who went into white neighborhoods and spread fear about black people moving in and got people to sell out for a song, then turned around and jacked up prices and interest rates for black people, who were still restricted in where they could buy, borrow or rent by redlining, artificially reducing supply relative to demand. The fearmongering was called blockbusting. (Other northern cities too, manifestations of northern voluntary & permitted rather than legally mandated racist discrimination, as in the south.)

    When pro-Clinton people peddle the Bradley effect, it's the moral equivalent of blockbusting.

    And I don't buy it that all the black folks will come back to Hillary if she gains the nomination. When Bill Clinton plays the race card, and then complains that he's having the race card played on him when he gets called out for his shenanigans (South Carolina), I think he's lost something he'll never get back and it will cost Hillary. Not many will vote for McCain, but a lot of people might sit on their hands.

    There is an interesting and pertinent article in The Nation "Race, Feminism and Hillary Clinton", that is well worth a read.

    <hr/>

    Willingness to play political games with the idea of "totally obliterating" another country is a disqualification to be president.

  • Lori (unverified)
    (Show?)

    SurveyUSA has a poll this weekend with Obama +6 in Oregon.

    • Clinton 44
    • Obama 50
  • (Show?)

    I think the problem with the Survey USA poll is that their number of likely voters is too low - only 40.47% of those registered to vote who were polled were considered to be likely voters.

    In 2004, 46.4% of those registered in Oregon voted. And that was when we had a presidential primary that was already decided.

    We have a presidential primary that isn't decided, not to mention lots of hotly contested races from city council to U.S. Senate. I think the number is going to be a lot higher than that.

  • nj (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama will win in Oregon by 20, no problem. He's only spent one day here, the day Bill Richardson endorsed, and we've already been inundated with Bill, Chelsea and Hillary.

    After Tuesday, I expect Obama will be back. He'll probably swing by OSU this time around to see his brother-in-law in action with the Beavs (go OSU), as well as all the small towns Bill hit earlier.

    And with Obama's stand on the gas tax getting traction and gaining him respect, his new environmental endorsement, his numbers rising again in North Carolina and even looking like he might have a small shot at Indiana, Oregon will come through.

    And hey, Tom Hanks endorsed Obama today; we can't let him down!

    Let's go City of Roses and all of Oregon: let's put our state on the map and end this baby once and for all. Let's send a loud message to the superdelegates and the rest of the US that we're choosing the next president of the United States!

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Trishka typed: "yeah! what avwrobel said! it's the bill bradbury effect! wherein a highly qualified progressive loses to a conservative republican posing as a moderate! ignore it at your peril, you oregon obamatrons! and yes, google IS my friend, so there!"

    Once again, the Clinton campaign is left with an appeal to fear. I'm voting for Obama because I think he'd be a great leader, not because I'm afraid of a Clinton or McCain victory. It's time we walked out of the caves of fear and into the sunlight, where people actually cast votes FOR politicians instead of against them.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I found this analysis from one of the bloggers on Barackobama.com:

    IGNORE THE MEDIA, GOP & HILLARY SPIN & HYPE!

    Updated 5/4/08

    “WORST CASE” WITH ALL 8 REMAINING CONTESTS:

    If CLINTON were to win the following FOUR remaining contests by VERY UNLIKELY HIGH margins, and if she wins the majority of the remaining undecided super delegates:

    INDIANA* 57% +14 KENTUCKY 65% +30 PUERTO RICO 65% +30 WEST VIRGINIA 65% +30

    SUPER DELS 63% + 26

    (*Obama may win Indiana – above is just worst case)

    AND….

    If OBAMA were to win the following FOUR remaining contests by UNLIKELY LOW margins, and if he only receives 37% of remaining undecided super delegates:

    N. CARLONIA 52% + 4 MONTANA 52% + 4 OREGON 52% + 4 SOUTH DAKOTA 52% + 4

    THE FINAL DELEGATE OUTCOME WOULD BE:

    HILLARY 2,006

    OBAMA 2,024 = OBAMA STILL WINS!

    OBAMA IS GOING TO WIN THE DELAGATE RACE, AND HE WILL WIN THE NOMINATION.

    STOP THE DRAMA, VOTE OBAMA!

  • avwrobel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Oregon! If Colin Powell had not given his disastrous U.N. speech and had resigned as sec. of state under Bush, and had sat out the 2004 election and was now running as a presidential candidate for either party, THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE TRANSCENDING RACE!! His achievements would do the transcending! Obama is an EMPTY SUIT! Do you Obama nuts see the difference? He gave a speech against the war while representing one of the most liberal districts in Illinois when running for a state office, and he holds this up as an example of his incredible judgement? Please. This is why the Bradley Effect (that of voters not telling pollsters their racial bias) is such a risk in the general election. It can throw 2-5% of the vote to the white guy. Yes, its racism. But its also tribalism, factionalsim, sectarianism, in others, natural human behavior. Obama got many delegates before real scrutiny was applied to him, therefore the threat to his nomination exists. Hillary is the better candidate. The risk of Obama losing in the general election is a risk that we can't afford to take.

  • (Show?)

    Avwrobel,

    Your comment is one of the most disturbing I've seen in a long time. Racism=natural human behavior? No, it's not...racism is a learned construct that you are using to further your candidate of choice. The idea of voting for Clinton NOT because you have specific policy disagreements with Obama (you failed to list one) but because he is African-American is sanctioning racist thought.

    Your "empty suit" comment simply shows a lack of education on the policy issues of this election. It's just not true.

    Finally, if we were going to further follow your logic, then folks would also secretely vote their sexism or their ageism. If your line of thinking really bore out, John Edwards would now be our nominee.

    The one thing that this election shows, and will show, is that America doesn't buy into such crap -- we are about to make an African American man the Democratic nominee for President, and then, we will make him the President.

  • genop (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Those who needed a reason to justify their racial bias, something they would never express (and probably don't even recognize), have found it in the black activist Reverend Wright. The media has become complicit in keeping this taint alive. Hillary has picked up a few in the popular electorate who feel everything Obama has to say makes sense, but aren't sure they could elevate a non-white to such a vaunted position of respect. Wright's venom legitimizes their prejudice. The question is, will they conquer this prejudice when Barrack is the nominee in the general election? Redemption is but a vote away.

  • genop (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I suspect the "empty suit" slur has more to do with the color of the suit than it;s content.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kristin,

    As much as I lament it, racism is natural. It grows out of the evolutionarily successful preference for family, clan, and tribe. It is not useful in modern multi-ethnic and multi-racial societies, and it certainly leads to inhumanity, but it is not an invention of the one group or another, but rather a natural tendency that has been exploited by many [American upper-class Europeans, for instance] to further their economic and political ends.

    When the US economy melts down under the strain of expensive energy, failed imperialism, and a kleptocratic banking system, we are likely to be faced with increased racism as a reaction to the stress and the desire to blame someone who can be seen as the other. Our common humanity will need reinforcement by people of good will, most certainly.

  • (Show?)

    Tom,

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. While I can understand a tendency towards favoring ones tribe, clan, etc., the specific divisions based upon race (rather than any other form of difference) have been constructed through centuries of laws and economic systems that, just as they were created, can also be eradicated. At this point, the divisions feel natural, most likely, just as they would if the divisions were originally formed based upon hair color or shoe size, or any other type of difference. By suggesting it is natural we also suggest it is inevitable, which it is not. The learned systemic thought can be unlearned.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama is an EMPTY SUIT! Do you Obama nuts see the difference?

    Oh Clinton supporters - I'm just shaking my head at them now and grinning. I admire their perseverance though. They still think the superdelegates are going to overturn the will of the people. That will happen oh...never.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kristin,

    If the natural were inevitable, there would be many fewer monogamous men. Many traits that lead to undesirable behavior [depending on point of view, of course] have genetic roots. Human beings have powerful brains capable of reasoning and strong, complex cultures that can effect behavior profoundly. Both of these can help us overcome some inherited tendencies, including racism, in my opinion.

    Although humans have many genetic tendencies toward cooperation and community, it is not unreasonable or unsupported by evidence that we also have genetic tendencies toward competition and aggression.

  • avwrobel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    To Kristin and all else I'm not saying ALL voters are racists. Just pointing out that 2-5 % of voters will not vote for an unaccomplished black man, which will be more than enough to swing the general election the Republican way. (google Bradley Effect) Clinton's campaign against Obama has been genteel campared to what the Republicans will do, which will be to club Obama like a baby seal. He seems like a good fellow, but he's just a much riskier choice. Its nothing personal folks, just politics, and a Democrat must win. Also, Hillary will be better at whipping Pelosi and Reid into line when they come back with larger majorities.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I would be happy to argue Obamas policys-if I could find one with specifics-like How are you actually going to change the world? or How do you propose to get rid of all the lobbists, wave a magic wand, sprinkle pixie dust on them? Making all the declarations in the world mean nothing without policys you can implement. I am way too practical to buy into pixie dust politics

  • genop (unverified)
    (Show?)

    From the ground up. Haven't you been listening. It starts with this campaign. Then turns to Congress. With common interests at stake, all join to defeat war, hunger, global warming, etc. A new interdependence requiring shared sacrifice and social consciousness, not just that we're all in this together- but on the same team. Now, let's see which candidate has crafted the most effective campaign? Who has the best grass roots support? Which candidate has motivated new voter turnout and crossover? Just more pixie dust? Only if you're snorting it.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    so what are you willing to sacrifice??any idea what he wants you to sacrifice yet? Maybe your pixie dust??you've got some under your nose

  • genop (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Now that's a reasonable counter point - not. For now, I sacrifice time, energy and $ to help elect a leader with great ideas which I share. You are welcome to join the team, we need more pixies.

  • (Show?)

    Avrobel,

    "Unaccomplished" is simply not the reality. Obama is a United States Senator with a prior record that should make anyone truly proud.

    Sandra,

    If you think it's all pixie dust, you haven't been paying attention. You could read the New York Times today, where Obama's economic program is described in great specificity. Or you could look at his legislative history, which includes initiatives like the Global Poverty program and a great ethics bill. You could spend some time on his web site or on Lexus-Nexus, learning about the details of his plans. It might -gasp-take some work, but it's all there. It might be easier to make insults, though.

    And Tom, you make very good points. I don't necessarily agree but appreciate your intelligent approach.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I go to NYT every day and get daily updates on my mail-I was posting there on several sites this AM and surly did not run across that article, was it in the gardening section? And I have visited his website early on and often. I also spent 2 hours out of my busy day to listen to obama on meet the press, and hillary on this week. Hillary is an amazing source of specifics, plans and details-and Obama is not, his explanation of his plans for nucleor energy and coal fired plants was vague-and for energy and global warming purposes-i want specifics-as we well know in the northwest-n-energy has major drawbacks

  • (Show?)

    Sandra, the policy proposals on Obama's website are every bit as specific as those on Clinton's website, and like hers, in some cases contain links to even more detailed pdf documents.

    If you prefer to spend your internet time googling right-wing smears of Obama to import into our primary debate, that's your prerogative, but don't blame what you don't know because of your own failures to do minimal research on Senator Obama.

    <hr/>

    Tom C. & Kristin, for what it's worth coming from someone who's spent 25 years researching and thinking about racism over a long stretch of human history and its relationship to to other forms of social inequality and prejudice around the world, I'd suggest the following -- what does seem to be in some sense "natural" is making choices on an "in-group vs. out-group" basis, particularly under pressures of scarce resources or a need for self-defense based on a sense of confidence & trust. In larger societies that manifests itself frequently as ethnocentrism, across long stretches of time and around the world. But it's a natural capacity, perhaps a tendency, not "human nature" in the way that having eyes, ears a nose and a mouth is, barring extreme damage.

    In my view what we understand as "racism" in the U.S. (and the Euro-diaspora more generally) is an historically specific case of this capacity for ethnocentrism, limited in time to the past 200 years or so. It was specifically shaped by the intersection of racialized slavery, the development of scientistic racialism in the early phases of what became biology and anthropology, and the development of liberal capitalist nation-states as the organizing principles of politics and economics in an increasing number of societies & European colonialism as a key mechanism of their expansion. That evolving historical conjunction is unique in human history, though now protracted over 8 or 10 generations and geographically spread around the world.

    The black liberal integrationist scholar of Classics Frank Snowden, among his many works, published a book called Before Color Prejudice. In it he argued, convincingly in my view, that the ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean had strongly marked ethnocentrism, but not racism in anything like what that term means today. Thus the Hellenes (ancient Greeks) had strong, really extreme views of their own cultural superiority over pretty much anyone else, and to some extent saw it as inherently inherited (which does not mean biological, much less genetic, grossly anachronistic terms for the period) -- the term ethnos referred to things we would now call "culture," but also saw aspects of culture as inherent characteristics of given peoples, even while also recognizing the dynamic and developmental aspects (our "culture" is related to "cultivation" & conscious development and improvement).

    But the Hellenes did not in any way associate whatever was inherent in ethnos / peoplehood with the physical markers most commonly used to define "race" in the Euro-diaspora and the U.S. in recent centuries: skin color, hair texture and shapes of facial features, particularly noses and lips. They identified much more closely with the darker-skinned Egyptians, including the quite dark-skinned Nubians, and Levantines and peoples of Mesopotamia and Persia, all barbarians to them, but civilized barbarians whose then-ancient civilizational pedigrees gave them prestige, than with the lighter-skinned backward barbarians of continental Europe who now are paradigmatically "white." Neither civilizational status nor subjection to enslavement was color-coded for them, or indeed anywhere in ancient Mediterranean-Levantine-Mesopotamian-Persian world. And although late Europeans identified the ancient Greeks with "the West" and themselves likewise, and thus the ancient Greeks with Europe, the Hellenes themselves did no such thing, their own home territory being on both the European and Asian sides of the Aegean, while most of Europe was to them sunk in abjectly primitive forms of barbarism.

    Now to say that that the modern sense of "race" is historical and not "natural" only gets us so far.

    "Race" in that modern sense is tied to a history of enslaveability determined by skin color, of attribution of ostensible characteristics of races, nations and peoples to inherited "blood" qualities and processes, including attributions defined as scientific (though only late as "biological" and even later as "genetic"), and by legal definition within the law systems of evolving liberal capitalist states

    The history and ideas involved are powerful and now deeply rooted in cultures spread around the world. They are not "natural" in the sense of universally inherent (though they are contingent expressions of what seems to be a univeral human capacity for ethnocentrism). But they became deeply naturalized within cultures over centuries and decades, "second nature" within culture to use the ancient Roman concept. We have been struggling to denaturalize such "racial" ideas in intellectual culture for about a century more or less, and especially since the 1920s and 1930s -- though scientistic and academic racialism remained powerful until discredited by Nazism and still has periodic revivals -- and in popular culture for an even shorter time. The victory of those struggles, if it comes at all, will not be in this century, though victories in the struggle and improvement in the situation will occur in that period, I hope and believe.

    The fact that it's still very easy to express the idea that "racism is natural" and have it seem either a sensible statement, or at least not obiously not sensible, while to explain why it's not, really, takes paragraphs and paragraphs of words that would be abstruse to many, is indicative of the depth of the problem.

    Anyway, that's my take, for what it's worth.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris,

    I consider racism an extension of ethnocentrism, and your description in racism in America is, I believe, generally correct, though I am not going to analyze all it's points now. When the genetics that influence human behavior were evolving, there was likely little inter-racial contact, in the current sense that we mean "racial", so racism as a specific phenomenon between Caucasians, Asians, and Negroids, was probably not imprinted on our genes. Tribalism, which is genetic, suffices to spawn all sort of intergroup hatred if members of one group perceive competition from another group or want ethical justification for exploiting another group. There is always strong cultural and psychological influence operating, so this is never just a "natural" reaction.

  • BloodDAnna (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I spent Saturday canvasing for Senator Clinton as well as phonebanking at the Portland campaign office. After visiting this site and seeing the polls etc I was pretty surprised at the pro-Hillary voters out there.

    You all had me concerned but after actually speaking with average Oregonians, I think the outcome will be alot closer then some of you think.

  • (Show?)

    Tom,

    I think you are profoundly wrong about the nature of genetics and the relationship between genetics and behavior, and in your treatment of "Caucasians, Asians and Negroids" as terms of anything other than very recent cultural-ideological meaning.

    This in particular must surely be inverted: "When the genetics that influence human behavior were evolving, there was likely little inter-racial contact."

    Think about it: this presumes distinct racial separation predating the evolution of "the genetics that influence human behavior." So those genetics would post-date the earliest migrations of modern humans out of Africa, generally dated ca. 60,000 BCE or at most 100,000 BCE. Or do you think "racial" differentiation into the categories you use had already occurred in Africa prior to such migrations?

    I have some trouble understanding what genetics don't influence human behavior. But leaving that aside for the moment, surely the point would be that "human nature-defining genetics," whatever we might mean by that, predate the emergence of superficial phenotypical differences that are used in modern ideologies to define "races."

    I.e., there was no "inter-racial contact" because there were no "inter-racial" differences on the bases used in modern racial ideologies to define races.

    Those superficial phenotypic differences are later responses to geographic & climatic variations in significant degree, though also to sufficient geographic spread that sub-populations became somewhat isolated from one another (though by gradual continua of shadings of interaction, not clear lines).

    "Race" is a word which as recently as the 1960s was still used in U.S. English in a by-then old-fashioned way as a synonym for nations or ethnic groups, as in, "the Italian race," in the New York Times, in an article on the controversy over the Vinland map and Viking vs. Columbus precedence in "discovering" America. Speaking of national groups as "races" was commonplace into the 1920s.

    The classic ca. 1920 non-discrimination phrase "race, creed, color or national origin" is actually a listing of three different glosses on "race" that were not completely compatible and only partially overlapping, for completeness -- "creed" for those definitions that considered Jews a "race," "color" for those that focused on skin pigment,"national origin" for the widespread tendency to treat nationality as biological and racial.

    In 1939 the Harvard doyen of racial physical anthropology, Carlton Coon (a Cornish surname not without its potential for ironic humor in the context), published a comprehensiveness-intending tome called The Races of Europe, of which he distinguished several dozen.

  • (Show?)

    Chris, are you familiar with David Niewert and his most excellent blog Orcinus? His work on social racism is great, and I particularly like his work documenting the racist background of the Minutemen leadership and their associated groups (like the Virginia Dare society, itself ironic considering Virginia Dare was perhaps America's first "anchor baby")

    Your research and interests seem compatible.

  • 18yearoldwithanopinion (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I was handing out lit in the Hillsboro farmers market yesterday for non presidental candidate and saw a large group of hilary volunteers working the crowds (fairly well to be honest) and no obama supporters. Probably not representative of the entire state but its just what I say. I also have gotten mail from obama at least twice in the last two weeks and the radio stations that high school kids like me (95.0, Z100) are full of obama ads and none by Hilary. So cleary each candidate is reaching out to different voter groups in Oregon. Should be a good race here in Oregon.

    (Disclosure: After spending over 5 hours on thursday night playing with various electoral maps online and reading through all the policies from both candidates I made the decision to support Clinton. I really like both and it was the hardest time I have ever had trying to decide which candidate to support and I have been volunteering for primary campaigns since I was 8 years old.)

  • (Show?)

    Sandra,

    Front page, today's New York Times...continued inside the fold....couldn't miss it. Front page. Sunday New York Times. Specifics. I echo what Chris said...don't blame your lack of research on Obama. Look beyond the TV.

    And Chris, another thank you. As usual, you have more energy to describe issues than I do. I could have gone into phrenology, Buckle, creating racism in the United States as a way of justifying property ownership, etc. but the kids would get antsy. Thanks for taking on a similar sort of task for me.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks for the ref TJ. I read Niewert's book some time ago about rural radical right dynamics in the PNW, much of it particularly focused on a situation in Montana, parts of which touched on racialist stuff but a lot also on the militia movement and posse comitatus-like stances toward the federal government that I thought was illuminating. Didn't know about his work on the Minutemen, or the Virginia Dare Society (have poked around their webpage a little -- Peter Brimelow should go back where he came from :-> ) but will look for it, as he'd be well equipped to shed interesting light. Will check out Orcinus too. Nice point about Virginia Dare as an anchor baby ... Thanks again.

    Kristin, you're welcome -- sometime it would be interesting to hear your take on that stuff, but unfortunately on my part it's also probably misplaced energy to some extent, in terms of what priorities should be. So props for having your own straight.

  • Carl McQueen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The comment about how clinton won't win without the black vote is, well stupid, remember only 17% of the entire population is black. I think you should look at how many clinton suporters will vote for mccain if obama gets the nomination. I'm so sick and tired of being called a racist when if you look at the way the blacks have voted for obama, lets talk about racism!!!

  • Carl McQueen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Don't believe polls they are designed to keep things going, afterall if this was over what would they poll, Another thing, if you look at who they poll, 40% blacks when there are only 17% in the entire USA. Hmmm sounds like they want this to continue, lol what a joke

  • Roy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It is interesting to note that you guys are Researcing well to choose your preffered candidate. It is right by every standard. When you talk about Policy making and the Decisions and Judgements on them shll be an inevitable ploy.

    Not only that, the candidate that best ready to involve others to Preview and involve the Stake Holders to formulate Suggestions and provisions that will likely Benfit The American people and Not American Lobysts.

    As such, in view of this, Obama shall be seen as most DOWN TO EARTH to come up with the BEST POLICY surrounding the BASIC NEEDS of Americans in all its consderations to Stabilise the Economy, Social Integration, and Environmental, with Better Affordable Health Care Plans to mention but few.

    You Guys, there is no need to be KIDDING, Obama is the one to provide Better Policies and a New pages for Life betterment in America and the World at Large.

  • Carl McQueen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lets talk about lobbyist, it was Obama who bought stock and received campaign funds from not one but two companies. Then when he found out it was not keep private he dumped them. And he also sponsered those two in the senate to get funding and thats illegal. Google it.

  • Carl McQueen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Read this article you Obama lovers. http://mediamatters.org/items/200703090008

  • Carl McQueen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Quote from Michelle Robinson Obama's 1985 Princeton thesis, “There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.”

  • redcellpolitical (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In my thesis I wrote: "One solution to the deterioration of generational wealth would be to place limits on the negative impact of speculation on investment. A regressive taxation of securities bought and sold in short time spans would be very highly taxed and reduced incrementally."

    Do I still believe that? JHC no! I suspect that now that Michelle Obama is part of the elite her view of racial prejudice and the means of advancing black people have become less overtly racial and more economic. We all write lots of things and times change. Do you really think it is worth the time and effort to make people disavow everything they have ever written in the past?

    Cause good lord there have got to be more than a few loo-loos out their from HRC.

    Are we talking about electoral victory or a victory being successful enactment of progressive political principles? I think HRC has always had way too many negatives to make it. Moreover I dislike the dynasties of the last 16 years , as I believe they are a symbol of the ever decreasing ability of those outside the political elite to get into the power structure. This is where Obama comes in for me. He's new. He fills people with excitement and until the Rev Wright bs he sounded like a man who had comes to terms with race in the sense that he believed in economic advancement as the means to black power rather than reliance on a Democratic party that has pandered to blacks for fifty years with meaningless handouts instead of structured educational programs and focused economic development.

    Are American general election voters slightly more misogynist than they are racist? Even good liberal feminist I know have been talking about how shrill Hillary sounds, how hard... there is a lot of sexism, internalized and externalized ditto for racism. What sucks is that neither candidate seems above employing those dark corners to achieve electoral victory when the prize is actual political victory embodied in law and custom and federal policy.

  • Carl McQueen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Michelle Robinson Obama and ties to the Weather Underground

    A 1967 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, she worked at the Chicago law firm now known as Sidney Austin LLP from 1984 to 1988. And mentored by Bernadine Dohrn close ties to william Ayers.

    Obama’s wife, Michelle Robinson Obama, joined the firm in 1988 after graduating from Harvard Law School. Barack Obama met her then when he was a summer associate at the firm.

  • Carl McQueen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Correction on last comment Bernadine Dohrn has close ties to Ayers she is married to him.

  • Publius (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Racism is not natural, while bias and prejudice might be. Racism is a specific power-based relationship whereby one phenotype uses their economic, military and cultural advantage to suppress another phenotype (there is only one race so I won't use the term).

    White supremacy is a better term for what most call "racism". It is the power to limit the lives of others that is an integral part of the term racism and the system of white supremacy.

    The ugly component of racism or white supremacy is that it necessarily demeans and dehumanizes others to achieve, justify and maintain its power; and it holds its power jealously.

    Fear is a favorite tactic of racism, as is dehumanization of the "others". This is what America is wrestling with now and to my surprise doing a much better job of it than I expected.

    In this time of universal, ubiquitous media, the "old guard" of racism and white supremacy is dying slowly as all children know a Michael Jackson or a Michael Jordan irrespective of how lacking in diversity their immediate environment might be ... and therein is the hope for this nation and the future.

    So let the "old guard" blathers and scream, just remember to continue the steady pace towards a just and unified future.

  • Mike Stephens (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Barack Obama is nothing but a media rock star. He's a circus performer. But when it all hits the fan, he fails. He has rarely topped Hillary during their debates. And now his passover of the female reporter in Michigan. He cries out against a summer gas tax holiday...and what exactly was his solution? He fails to mention that the gas tax holiday was a suggested temporary end to what we're suffering...Clinton has repeatedly stated what her longterm plans are in bringing the price of gasoline down.
    Obama lost me when he attacked Clinton's healthcare plan, blatantly lying about her mandate solution, in order to create a fear that would move people to his side. I saw then what I've consistently seen throughout this campaign...he's not for the people, he's out for himself. I saw it when he couldn't take the time out of his "busy" schedule to attend the State of the Black Union address or the MLK ceremonies. Clinton attended both, she's always shown that she cares about the people. Time and time again...he has failed, in my eyes. And as for his associations, let's not even go there! Yet his blinded followers ignore it, as if sweeping it under the rug somehow makes things different. But if Hillary Clinton hung with a White Power pastor...what would have happened in the history of this campaign? So then, who exactly are the racists in this scenario? Seems to me that it's actually those who are pointing the finger at those of us who simply do not like or trust Barack Obama...as if we have no minds and are somehow influenced by the color of his skin.
    I'm still praying for a miracle. I'm still praying for Universal Healthcare (not some lame attempt to cover only children). I'm praying for a leader who will make our economy great again, like it was in the 90s when Bill Clinton was President. I'm praying for someone who has the strength to be our military leader, who knows how to keep our country safe from those who wish us harm.
    I'm praying...and hoping...that those in Oregon will make the right decision. California knew the correct answer. Think about it.

in the news

connect with blueoregon