The Clinton's have pulled out all stops to keep race on the table. The most recent instance of that is when they sent their black friend, Bob Johnson, to restate the racist rant of Geraldine Ferraro. As if a messenger in dark face, changed the nature of the racially negating and limiting message.
Just what is the meaning of Geraldine Ferraro's message? Most of us thought that Geraldine Ferraro was talking about affirmative action. That she was saying there’s something about being black that gave Barack an advantage, and because we though, like Barack said, that it was “absurd,” we left it with our indignation, but not much thought. But I think we missed the point they were trying to make, so they sent Bob Johnson, to say it again.
When Bob Johnson showed up to repeat Geraldine Ferraro’s message, he used a hypothetical to highlight something that was not in the original message, namely, if a white person was running for president, “would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?” Which presupposes that’s what Barack started out with, when that’s not true. Leading up to the primaries, 57 percent of black voters favored Hillary, while only 33 percent favored Barack. But by the time the Clintons reached the South Carolina primary, they had diminished Martin Luther King's contribution to civil rights, characterized the black vote as for "pride," racialized Barack's political success, and were under suspicion for mailings that falsely claimed Barack is a Muslim. At the end of all that, Barack Obama had 80% of the black vote.
Bob Johnson knew that Barack Obama didn't start out with 90% of the black vote, so why did he say that? And why did he repeat Geraldine Ferraro's racial claim? Because it furthered the racial idea that the Clintons were trying to communicate, namely, that African Americans are voting racially, and white Americans should do the same . . .
Because Geraldine Ferraro's comments and language were highly racialized, and typical of a certain racial idea, we quickly concluded the obvious, namely, a claim that an African American obtained something beneficial because of his race, had to mean, what it has always meant, that he received something undeserved. So Bob Johnson was sent to clear up the confusion. Looking like the fox in the chicken coop, peering out from under shifty eyes, and speaking from a twisted mouth, he gushed, "it's not like he didn't deserve it . . ."
So Bob Johnson restated, for the Clintons, the idea that Barack Obama's success was the product of racial voting, by falsely stating that African Americans gave Barack Obama 90% of their votes, before they knew anything about him. He went on to characterize the racial attitude, on Barack's behalf as aggressive, suggesting that African Americans, who support Hillary, are being pressured to reject her in favor of Barack. Then he spiced it up by suggesting that African Americans are in such a tither about Barack's candidacy, until they can't be "rational," and white people aren't allowed to talk about it.
Bob Johnson wasn't the only performer in the Clintons' bag of tricks, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary. CNN can always be counted on to carry the Clintons ideological theme, to the public.
For New Hampshire, CNN devised a racist report including Baracks African grandmother, falsely claiming that she did not want her son to marry a white woman, and expressing dismay that a future president of the United States could come from a "Kenyan grandmother," code for the N word? They also flashed, Hillary's teary moment, in agnosia, and brought us the Hillary show on "sexism," involving a man, sporting a Hillary sticker, who, along with his friend, shouted, "iron our shirts." And the Clinton theme, spoken by Hillary, was announced, "Sexism is alive and well," and two social ideas were activated: racial rejection and gender oppression.
For Ohio, CNN rolled the drumbeat for a seeming defection, involving an Obama advisor and some Canadians, in which it was claimed that Barack wasn't serious about NAFTA reform. Long after it was established as a lie, CNN repeatedly reported it as if it was true. Meanwhile, at every opportunity, CNN identified Barack's support racially, activating two social ideas: distrust and racial alienation.
For Pennsylvania, CNN continued to highlight African Americans as Baracks base of support, using the map analysis of voting trends, for increasing opportunities to do so. Then CNN went to work to heighten the implication of the Clinton theme, namely, that white people should vote racially:
CNN encouraged white people in Pennsylvania to vote racially, by highlighting the idea that black people are voting racially. CNN used Bob Johnson to tell the lie that African Americans immediately supported Barack Obama, without question, when they were fully aware that African Americans overwhelmingly supported the Clintons, before their racial gaffes. Bob Johnson was indulged to perpetrate lies and racial stereotypes, as well as the false assertion that African Americans are voting racially, and the inference that, white Americans should do the same, for Hillary.
CNN encouraged white seniors in Pennsylvania to consider African Americans as trouble makers, as part of their decision making process. CNN accomplished this through a report on a senior couple, who were Hillary supporters. After the couple talked about why they intended to vote for Hillary, CNN voiced in, "seniors are part of a generation that has experienced racial problems." The message: Vote Hillary or for a member of that group that you had trouble with . . .
Bill Clinton is a master of social manipulation. He has single handedly pulled off, what maybe the most extensive, manipulated, racial divide, in America's history. First, He tried to racialize Barack, while holding onto the African American vote. But when his antics caused African Americans to desert Hillary, he went back to the drawing board and defined the voting pattern of African Americans, as racial.
His first racial description of the African American vote was for "pride." Then his surrogate, Geraldine Ferraro, gave form to the concept, by describing Barack Obama's success as something akin to a racial gift, and she announced that it made him "so lucky to be who he is." However, there were challenges to the pride thing, so Bill Clinton gave the African American vote, a new racial name. It became a vote for "the first African American with a real chance to win."
The concept of racial voting by African Americans, didn’t take hold through Geraldine Ferraro's efforts, because her delivery was so racially explosive, until our reaction prevented us from understanding what she meant. Then the heat went up on racial comments by Clinton surrogates, until it occurred to them to deliver their message in dark face. So when they really needed the racial voting message spoken, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, they trotted out Bill’s black friend, Bob Johnson, to repeat Geraldine Ferraro's message, along with the caveat, that white people can’t talk about it, and the "explanation," "It's not like he didn't deserve it."
Inhibiting race talk is very disturbing to the Clinton agenda since, racially provocative words have to be repeated, often, to trigger the unconscious racial ideas in people. Hence, the Clinton complaints, through Bill and surrogates, about challenges to racial talk.
After the announcement by Bill's black friend, Bob Johnson, that white people can't talk about race, Bill tested the waters, by declaring that Barack Obama played the race card on him - two months ago— Which is not unlike Bob Johnson’s claim, that it took him a month, to confirm Geraldine Ferraro words. Both men, talking race, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary— It’s not about anything Barack did, two months ago. It's not about what Geraldine Ferraro said, a month ago. It's about furthering a racial agenda, that cannot be accomplished, if they can't talk race.
A CNN interview of people exiting the polls, evidenced that Barack's minister, and Barack's words about small town Pennsylvania, was not on the minds of the voters. The three people interviewed, voted for Hillary, and they described votes manufactured, in the racialized environment, necessary to promote Hillary's success.
One man said, he voted for Hillary because Barack has a chip on his shoulder. Who could look at Hillary's rantings and Barack's calm, and conclude that Barack is the one with a chip on his shoulder? Not anyone who’s paying attention. This man "heard" the Clinton's claim of racial division, and he lined up, racially.
A woman said she voted for Hillary because she really doesn't know Barack, so she voted for what she knows. That is the essence of the Clinton strategy, racialize Barack (make him unknown), then talk about him as dishonest, chastise him - like he is a child, raise questions about his religion, and even though he continues to look good, just like that unknown entree on a restaurant menu, when challenged, we go with what we "know."
The last voter was a man who said that he voted for Hillary because she would be ready to go on day one. He is the only one, who gave as a reason for voting for Hillary, something that Hillary says about herself. If these Hillary voters are exemplary, the likelihood is that 2 out of 3 people, who voted for Hillary in Pennsylvania, would have voted for Barack, if they had not been made uncomfortable about doing so.
The Clintons "speak" to our unconscious, prompting us to see Barack racially, and not as he is. The majority of Americans actually want Barack Obama to become president, but deep in the recesses, of their unconscious minds, there is a wealth of racial misinformation, and beliefs, that the Clintons are stirring up.
If we don’t consciously address issues of race in America, soon, we may loose our last best chance to restore America’s democracy, and to return America, to the people.