SC Civil Rights Worker: I probably have more in common with Edwards than I do with Obama & Clinton

[bigtree]

from Democracy Now, 'Race, Politics, Dr. King and the Primaries in South Carolina' : http://i2.democracynow.org/2008/1/15/race_politics_dr_king_and_the

Discussion with: Kevin Alexander Gray, Longtime civil rights organizer in South Carolina and former president of the state ACLU. He managed Reverend Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaign in South Carolina in 1988. He is also the author of “Waiting for Lightning to Strike: The Fundamentals of Black Politics.” His upcoming book is called “The Decline of Black Politics: From Malcolm X to Barack Obama.”


AMY GOODMAN: . . . talk about the battle that’s been going on. I mean, this is a race not just between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Of course, in fact, John Edwards won the primary in 2004. He comes from South Carolina.

KEVIN ALEXANDER GRAY: Yeah, you know, it’s odd. A lot of people tend to make the race the horse race between Senators Clinton and Obama, and John Edwards won four years ago with 130,000 votes. He is from Seneca, South Carolina. I’m from the upstate. Seneca is in the upstate. And his people worked in the mill. I worked in the mill. My people worked in the mill.

So I tell people, you know, now, Barack Obama is black, and if you only used his being black as a reason for voting for him, then maybe I might consider voting for him. But if you think about, for me, John Edwards and I having the same heritage, I probably have more in common with John Edwards than I do with both Obama and Clinton.

And, of course, I look at Clinton and Obama as coming from the DLC, and John Edwards was probably the first candidate that raised the issue of working people, that talked about working people, that used the word or the terms “working people.”

So I think that the race is still wide open, although it’s gotten kind of—well, it’s gone to race. Of course, we knew it was going to go there, and the Clintons have always been good at playing racial politics. So you have to wonder if, in fact, they kind of nudged Obama, who was trying to stay away from race, which is why he wasn’t doing so well in the early parts of this campaign in South Carolina, because he appeared to not want to take on black issues, not want people to really look at his—you know, because I’m trying to be real careful with this. You know, Barack Obama is black; that is obvious. But this idea that you can stay away from the issues that are crucial to black people for fear of offending white people, I think that kind of hindered the senator. And now that it appears as though the Clintons are laying claim to their base, their so-called black base, coming into a state where the majority of the voters in the Democratic Party or primary are going to be black, it seems that at one point you don’t want to be black, but now when your chances of being president are threatened, then you go back to being black, or you start being blacker. So that’s what we’ve witnessed thus far . . .


Listen/watch the segment: http://i2.democracynow.org/2008/1/15/stream

[ursi]

1. wow ....

[bigtree]

4. perspective

:kick:

[Blackhatjack]

2. This really sums up what we have seen so far ... thanks for posting it. n/t

[bigtree]

3. I'm here to tell you

the discussions I've been privy to in my own community have little resemblance to the ones we're subjected to in the mainstream press, and, even from DU. Race and gender are very much at the forefront of folks' minds, and, they are measuring the candidates against their desires for the potential historic achievement in electing Clinton or Obama against their very astute sense of the sincerity and substance of those affinities. You see that here at DU when folks bristle at the suggestion that their affinity is based solely on these traits. I would love to see us break through the initial sensitivity of these discussions of race and gender and take a good look at whether these candidates actually represent our own values and beliefs, beyond their race and gender (traits which aren't, by any means, unimportant), or, perhaps, as a consequence of their race or gender.

[EFerrari]

5. When you compare their actual positions, Edwards, the white

male Southerner, is a much more coherent voice for traditionally disenfranchised groups.

You can't make this stuff up. :)

[cascadiance]

6. You know if we've got to this stage where most recognize this fact, that is HUGE for race relations!

... and us moving towards being a color blind society.

People shouldn't be discriminated against because they are or aren't a black.

People shouldn't be dsicriminated against because they are or aren't a white.

People shouldn't be discriminated against because they are or aren't a woman.

People shouldn't be discriminated against because they are or aren't a man.

If people can vote for Edwards specifically for these reasons, and NOT because he's white, in the face of having a black candidate as an option, then we've really turned a corner!

[uppityperson]

7. Yup. Like I told a jerk once "I don't like you, you are a jerk"

actually I used stronger words, but you get the idea. Reply "you are anti-semitic. No, I just don't like YOU, think YOU are a jerk.

And for anyone who says "yeah, those poor white males, so discriminated against eyeroll", color blind/sex blind means looking at other factors. I do feel bad not being able to support Sen.Clinton BECAUSE she is female (yes, I'm a sexist female), but there I am.

[EFerrari]

9. It is huge.

:)

[progressoid]

8. I look at Clinton and Obama as coming from the DLC

Too bad most Americans have no idea what DLC means.