Hillary Clinton won among white voters in West Virginia by a 67-26% margin. Pretty lopsided. Then again, that's nearly an even split compared to the 90+ percent of black votes Barack Obama's been racking up in state after state.
So who does Diane Sawyer suggest should reject race-based votes? Senator 90+? Nope. James Carville was Sawyer's guest during the GMA's opening half-hour today.
DIANE SAWYER: I want to talk about the fact that 20% of the voters coming out of the West Virginia race said race was in fact a factor in their vote, and of those Senator Clinton won 84%. Here's my question: should Senator Clinton say she is rejecting the votes of anyone who votes based in any way on color of skin?
View video here.
JAMES CARVILLE: Well, I don't know. She certainly should not be a part of any kind of campaign or anything like that, but I have no idea honestly, how do you, do you have like a, does Senator Clinton have like someone out in front of every voting place, and like, quiz people, or put them under a lamp or something like that?
Carville was clearly being disingenuous. He knew very well that Sawyer was suggesting no such thing, as emerged in her follow-up.
SAWYER: No, but make a statement.
Carville eventually made the obvious point.
CARVILLE: But a candidate can't go to—there are a lot of people that vote for Senator Obama, I'm sure, based on race also. Should we not let these people vote? Of course we should.
Thus confronted with reality, Sawyer ceded the point.
SAWYER: And should everybody make that statement, then?
Better late than never, I suppose. But what does it say about Sawyer's pro-Obama bias that it didn't occur to her in the first place?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Twisted liberal logic
May 15, 2008 - 08:25 ET by reasonsjesterRacism is OK for black people, but not for white people.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
It's happening before our very own eyes...
May 15, 2008 - 09:56 ET by robertjacobCHAOS !!!
BHO...
May 15, 2008 - 10:39 ET by ontheright...would have never made it through the first state's election if the MSM's "equality template" were applied to him.
Whose talking about
May 15, 2008 - 08:36 ET by the strugglerWhose talking about race?Dems and Libs(redundant). Maybe the ballot should just read:White Guy....Black Guy.
Which one?
May 15, 2008 - 09:59 ET by CaringwhiteguyThe ballot needs to be more specific. You wouldn't want to confuse or "disenfranchise" those little old ladies in Palm Beach. Which one, "White Guy" or "Black Guy" is Obama?
I thought about this and if
May 15, 2008 - 08:41 ET by taterI thought about this and if the newsies framed it this way...
"90% of blacks don't vote for the white candidate."
instead of 90% of blacks voting for Obama it sounds more like racism. But they always say the white percentage not voting for a black candidate.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
It's even more blatant than that
May 15, 2008 - 10:25 ET by CaringwhiteguyIn a general election between Democrat and Republican blacks tend to vote (as much as 90% or more) for the Democrat candidate. It's easy to conclude from that type of results that blacks favor the Democrat agenda over the Republican agenda. It really doesn't matter who the Democrat and Republican candidates are.
Now, in this Democrat primary, we have a white and a "black" candidate who espouse essentially the same agenda, yet one gets 90% of the black vote. How, other than race, can this be explained?
"Some folks call it racism,
May 15, 2008 - 08:46 ET by SickofLibs"Some folks call it racism, I call it a kaiser blade.
I like them French fried potaters."
Even us rural folks are
May 15, 2008 - 08:49 ET by MidAmericaEven us rural folks are discussin' this race. (sorry to say, these characters are not exaggerations LOL)
I'm with the struggler
May 15, 2008 - 08:52 ET by DelsaThis topic is SO pushed by the media it makes me sick!
90% BLACK votes went to Obama and not a peep? Obama needs to reject his 90% and encourage them to vote for Clinton or McCain!
The type of question asked of voters in WV is a question not asked of any other voters? Why?
Is there something about the Democrat leaning, ,predjudiced racist media are attempting to say?
The democrats see Americans as groups.
Republicans see Americans as Americans.
The democrat chickens are coming home to roost!
This election sickens me for a whole host of reasons.
Oh for crying out
May 15, 2008 - 08:51 ET by motherbeltOh for crying out loud!
What the heck does reject[ing] the the votes of anyone who votes based in any way on color of skin? even mean?
Not a thing. But to Sawyer, it's important for them to make the statement. Because to liberals, it's the "intention" that matters.
What the heck does reject[ing] the the votes of anyone who votes
May 15, 2008 - 09:34 ET by GalvanicThat was the first thing that came to my mind. But my expectations for Diane Sawyer hit rock bottom long ago, so I've dismissed it, as Carville did in a more diplomatic way.
Carville should've replied, "Diane, how do we tell the votes cast on skin-color from the one's that weren't?"
You mean....
May 15, 2008 - 10:49 ET by ontheright...the voting places in WV don't require you to write your name at the top of your ballot so we make sure only "disenfranchising happens only to those of color?
Well, heck, us po white folk in the south has always been put 'n ours names at da top o da ballot. We taut dat was quirement...or mabe its cuz weez just dumb, racists confedret flag wav'n rednex from WV?
Diane, you are despicable. You fit right in with Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson and thier "race-baiting" ilk.
Oh, yeah, and for any white
May 15, 2008 - 10:58 ET by motherbeltOh, yeah, and for any white people who vote for Obama because they think it's time we had a black President.....this doesn't apply to you.
How about this on the ballot:
Please check one: Vote based on skin color:
Yes____ No____
Those checking "yes" please tear up your ballot and leave.
They're all about appearance and not substance
May 15, 2008 - 09:07 ET by c5thenSawyer is firmly in the midst of the typical liberal masses. It's all about the appearance and not about any substance. That's why so many in the MSM are willing to believe that average Americans are racist, because they themselves harbor such feelings, their rhetoric notwithstanding.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Race and Racism
May 15, 2008 - 09:12 ET by mustangsallyWhy can't the liberal pundits grasp that voting on "race" is not necessarily "racism"? Given Senator Obama's connections to his racist pastor (and mentor), many commonsense voters recognized that Senator Obama has misguided views on "race"....
I think a lot of people who
May 15, 2008 - 09:37 ET by BruzillaI think a lot of people who try to correlate the 90%+ black votes with the white votes for Clinton are making a mistake. Yes, both voter blocks are using race as a determining factor, but in vastly different ways. Blacks have been voting for white candidates for decades, and have never shown a hesitancy to vote for whatever white candidate best met their needs. If Obama weren't running, these people would be voting for Clinton.
Compare this with the number of whites who vote for Clinton because they refuse to vote for a black guy. I'm sure this is not all of them, but I would bet it's a sizeable chunk. With exit polling showing a majority of voters distrust Clinton, feel she's not honest, feels she's lacking integrity, you got to wonder why so many are voting for her anyway.
You can't discount racism amongst blacks
May 15, 2008 - 10:24 ET by CobraMan"Yes, both voter blocks are using race as a determining factor, but in vastly different ways."
You can't discount racism amongst blacks or that race is a being used as the determining factor in the votes for Obama. As a matter of fact, I would say that race is THE determining factor for quite a few black voters. They're not interested in Obama's ability to be President; they're only interested in him because he’s black. Why else would Obama have 90+ percentages amongst the black voters but not amongst other demographic groups like Hispanics? That indicates that a high percentage are voting for him simply because he's black.
Bruzilla, what about white
May 15, 2008 - 11:12 ET by motherbeltBruzilla, what about white people who vote for Obama because they think it's time we have a black President?
Perhaps it would help if we
May 15, 2008 - 13:49 ET by BruzillaPerhaps it would help if we all decided what "racism" actually is. America Heritage defines it as "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race."
Okay, now lets look at the situation and see if the definition fits. Do blacks voting for Obama reflect a belief that blacks are superior and are superior to whites? I would say yes if blacks had a history of not voting for whites, but they don't. Blacks have been actively supporting and voting for whites for decades, so I think it's hard to make the case that they see blacks as superior. Do they have a preference? Obviously, but they seem to have no problem with white leaders. Now look at it from the other side. Do you think there were quite a few whites who said "I'll never vote for a black man!"? Could be.
As to the second part of the definition, which I find more telling, blacks voting for Obama are not trying to discriminate or be prejudiced against Clinton. These are folks who would vote for her in a second if Obama weren't running, but they have a preference for Obama. Now, how many whites are voting for Clinton not because they have a preference for her but because they want to discriminate against Obama? If Clinton had equivalent positive numbers in all the exit polls I could see that whites were supporting her instead of being against Obama, but why else do you vote for someone you say is dishonest, who you dislike, and who doesn't share your values... unless it's becuase you can't bring yourself to vote for a black?
ARE LIBERALS STUPID?
May 15, 2008 - 09:51 ET by Increase MatherJust another insane double-standard liberals apply to candidates they don't support. Are they stupid?
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess...no, just very, very, biased.
How can anyone stand to watch these programs?
Typical liberal
May 15, 2008 - 10:11 ET by ConservativeRexTypical liberal claptrap. Both candidates inject racial politics into this race and now are decrying it. If BHO wins the democratic primary YCBYA race is going to be an issue. An issue on the LEFT. The entire reason for the democrat party to have exsisted this long is only because of racial issues. They thrive on bringing racial politics to the forefront.
It's actually a toss up between racial politics and abortion. But you can be sure, if race is brought up it'll be the liberals doing it.
Bill Schneider at CNN already explained this months ago...
May 15, 2008 - 10:13 ET by krendlerBill Schneider at CNN already explained this months ago while reporting the demographic breakdown showing blacks voting 80% or 90% in favor of Obama (this was in one of the very first primary states). After reporting the obsenely lopsided number, Schneider was quick to point out, very emphatically, that blacks were voting that way "because of pride. Not prejudice". Don't know how he could possibly have known that. I seriously doubt he'd have made that assertion if it had been whites voting 90% for Hillary, saying something like "This is simply about white pride. Not prejudice against blacks."
Yes. The bias by the media in favor of Obama during the Dem campaign has been absolutely off the charts. Can barely stand to watch CNN. MS-NBC is beyond belief.
White people shouldn't have
May 15, 2008 - 10:19 ET by FranksamWhite people shouldn't have any pride, according to our critics. We're just supposed to have guilt for having so screwed up the entire world.
How could he have known
May 15, 2008 - 16:12 ET by BruzillaHow could he have known that? Because those same blacks have been voting for whites for decades! If they were prejudiced they wouldn't have been voting for whites.
So what?
May 15, 2008 - 10:21 ET by KC MulvilleI don't have any problem with a black voter voting for a candidate because he's black. Part of the idea of representative democracy is that you vote for people who will represent you. If you're black, and you believe that your race gives you a different (but equally valid) perspective on public issues, then you should have every right to vote for someone who will represent your point of view.
The myth is that an elected representative represents everyone in his district. In the original design of the constitution, before political parties, that may have been the case. But let's return to present reality. In this day and age, every election has been nationalized. It isn't about representing local constituencies anymore.
If you want to elect someone from your cultural or ethnic background so they can advocate from your perspective, that's perfectly legitimate. It works whether you're concerned about race, gender, religion, or any other demographic.
There's only one catch. If you want the right to vote that way, you have to agree that others vote that way also. And if someone wants to vote to represent the white male perspective, you have no right to complain. It's your choice.
Re: KC Mulville
May 15, 2008 - 11:39 ET by americaneagleGreat analysis on your part! This says it about as well as anything I have read or heard anywhere else; people can choose to support or reject a candidate for any reason they feel is legitimate. I don't care why other people vote the way they do, their vote is their vote and they have every right to make it without being browbeaten for making the "wrong" choice for whatever their reasons.
But I did like Carville's asking if Hillary was supposed to have people outside the polling places questioning their reasons for their votes. You take the votes you get and go on, not sit around worrying about "Why did he vote for me?" You had best assume that you were rewarded with a vote because you were the better candidate and move on from there.
Thanks
May 15, 2008 - 14:41 ET by KC MulvilleYou're right. The day we owe anyone an explanation for how we voted is the day democracy dies.
We'd love to pretend that every American is a foreign policy, economics, and cultural expert. Then, we'd pretend that everyone votes by a nuanced and judiciuous balance of policy positions. Well, good luck with that, because it ain't gonna happen. In fact, I'm not so sure I'd want that to happen anyway, because that would indulge the hubris that all Americans are noble geniuses, and humility begs to differ.
In my opinion, it's better to accept humanity than to pretend we're all perfect. Given a choice between [a] waiting for perfection versus [b] adjusting to our weaknesses on the fly, I'd much rather choose [b].
Should Obama reject black votes?
May 15, 2008 - 10:31 ET by Mr_PriestSenator Obama won 99% of the black vote. Here's my question: should Senator Obama say he is rejecting the votes of anyone who votes based in any way on color of skin?
Sawyer was a has been 15
May 15, 2008 - 11:16 ET by buddycSawyer was a has been 15 years ago. She has lost touch with today's generation. An attractive (with make up and surgery) women 20 years ago? New demographics require change. Time for her to move on.
I would like to see mexican american man in his 30's in her position. Does ABC have ANY hispanics that comment on the news???????????
WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT SAWYER
May 15, 2008 - 11:59 ET by TOEWHAT IT SAYS ABOUT SAWYER IS THAT SHE IS
A LITE-WEIGHT TABLE-TOP CANDY JAR
Impressed with Carville
May 15, 2008 - 13:06 ET by fuzzydiceFor the first time in my adult life, I'm impressed with James Carville.
He wasn't his normal attack dog self, and actually made some sense.
But, maybe he was being nice because he knows that soon he will be teaming up with Sawyer to attack McCain.