An ugly Democratic split

My former Boston Phoenix colleague Al Giordano, on leave from the Narco News Bulletin, has been blogging the presidential campaign this winter. He’s got a particularly detailed and perceptive post on the Nevada Democratic caucuses, in which he offers some thoughts — backed up by first-hand reporting — on the increasingly ugly split between pro-Obama African-Americans and pro-Clinton Latinos. Giordano writes:

Now, I’m a connoisseur of ugliness in all its forms, I find it mostly entertaining, but the part of yesterday’s caucus that was so ugly as to be distressing was to see the Hispanic and black communities so polarized: The Clinton caucusers were predominantly Hispanic-American and the Obama caucusers were predominantly African-American — most on both sides were women — and they shouted and taunted each other with boos, cat-calls, hisses, thumbs down, and at one point one man on the Obama side began chanting, “I did not have sex with that woman!”

He concludes: “Frankly, unless events conspire during this 2008 Democratic primary process to reverse those truly ugly developments, any Democrat that thinks that November is already won is a fool that is not to be taken seriously from here on out.” (Thanks to Media Nation reader C.M.)

9 thoughts on “An ugly Democratic split

  1. Suldog

    Well, I’m not certain you’ll agree, Dan, but I think this is just the divisiveness of Democratic politics in general coming home to roost.They have been playing the us vs. them cards for years and years – black vs. white, rich vs. poor, male vs. female – and it was just inevitable that, sooner or later, schisms would develop within the party itself, just as they (in some instances rightly, in many other instances for political gain) have made use of such differences in public debate. That some within the party have divided along racial lines is hardly a surprising development to me.

  2. mike_b1

    That the Dems have divisions along racial lines is not a new development at all. This has been happening since the party was formed.

  3. Christopher

    you know, if they just had honest jobs and had honest friends that they wouldn’t be attacked or questioned. The Demo’s could be unified easily if they had a popular real leader step up, but that isn’t going to happen now against the Clinton Machine.

  4. Anonymous

    Excellent point, Suldog. “Live by the sword..” Mr. Giordano refers to himself as “…a connoisseur of ugliness in all its forms, I find it mostly entertaining,…”. A click on http://www.narconews.com/verifies that. Former readers of “The Daily Worker” have a home on the web.(Warning, wireless home networks can be impeded by tinfoil hats).

  5. Steve

    The thing with the Democrats is they have THREE popular, real leaders, and the party must choose between them. Any of the three Democratic party leaders will make a fine president. Head and shoulders over the current resident of the White House, and better than any of the contenders for the Republican nomination.The Democrats will probably succeed, if they can keep from spilling too much blood and burning too many bridges.

  6. Peter Porcupine

    DK – Please advise the ethnicities involved in the Clinton/Obama spat.I had thought it was gender based.It is identity politics rebounding upon its creators.

  7. Local Editor

    Peter P.,It’s neither. It’s just politics. Two candidates pulling out the biggest clubs they can find to whack an opponent.Remember, this ain’t bean bag.

Comments are closed.