what in that statement hint at all about racism?

I am unsubcribing to your feed for this idiotic post. There are a lot of things you can say about Huffington and er run and how she should drop out bu the threat of racism, from the information provided in your post, is completely unfounded. Especially since that August 7th interview happened BEFORE garamendi pulled out, or Garamendi a latino also? She is still in it because she is polling at 7% better than everyone but Arnold, Cruz, and Simon.

Settle down, you know as well as I do, unions will win this election because they will show up. As a union cheerleader, stop accusing people of racism, and get out the vote for Gary and Cruz. If you want to attack Huffington try her experience, her lack of ideas or conservative conversation ... don't make up racist accusations that make true racists look more normal.

Kevin, subscribe as you will, but I think the 1996 provisions attacking immigrants were racist. And Arianna did support that law with her then-buddy Newt Gingrich. Which gives her a much higher hill to climb than a lot of other progressives would.

And I didn't say that Arianna was a racist, but she is likely to be seen as one if she says a white Democratic candidate is "serious" but a latino one is not.

She also hinted Garamendi wasn't serious.

I think the 1996 provisions attacking immigrants were wrong, to call them racist ignores the large amount of immigrants from Eastern Europe. No offense, they did not target southwestern states or anything of the sort. I think those provisions are very wrong, but racist ignores the wide breadth of the concept of immigration.

As for her old buddies, I agree she has a lot to deal with in that respect. Of her 7% of support 5% are republican so I agree that she has a hard time claiming that she is a progressive.

The only people hinting at racism is you ... and I don't see how calling 50 democrats not serious candidates? Also including Garamendi.

Finally what in that statement calls Bustamante "not serious" polling shows what huffington says is right. Feisntein would win if she ran. Bustamante, is not polling as high, so she actually has a chance (polling at half bustamante's numbers instead of one-ffth of Feinstein's)

Whiff of racism? I still don't see how you can justify that given that garamendi was in the race, she never singled out Bustamante, and Feinstein polls so high. Show me one place or person who has said that.

If you think the Prop 187 to 1996 anti-immigrant provisions weren't tied to anti-latino racism, well we have a disagreement about what constitutes racism. Try reading the rightwing literature promoting those provisions back then-- they were driven by racism and anti-Americanism.

And the fact that Schwarzenneger voted for Prop 187 and has appointed its architect, Pete Wilson, as a campaign co-chair, just makes his defeat all the more important.

There is absolutely nothing in Arianna Huffington's statement that smacks of racism. To call it racist is grossly unfair and rather silly. Perhaps as a woman, Ms. HUffington is howing deference to another female politician?

Alan-- and the deference to the identity politics of rich white woman like Huffington and Feinstein by some progressive quarters is one of the examples of racism that many people of color complain about.

Bustamante is the first statewide elected latino in the state since whites conquered California from Mexico in the mid-19th century. There is an inherent racism in any candidate saying they would defer to another white candidate, but not to Bustamante. At least Camejo never said he would defer to any Democrat.

Although I've never posted here before, I check your site several times a week and almost always enjoy your posts. However, I think you've got this one completely wrong:

But it's okay to be a spoiler if the main Democratic candidate is latino?

That's not at all what Huffington is saying. She is saying that because Feinstein would have won the race, Huffington's role would have been that of a spoiler. If Bustamante wouldn't win the race anyway, then Huffington would not be a spoiler. Right or wrong, her opinion is that Bustamante would not win, an opinion that is made clear by the very next sentence of her interview, which you didn't include in your excerpt: " I am really determined that no Republican becomes governor of California, in the same way I am determined to do everything I can to ensure that George Bush is not reelected in 2004." You disagree with this because you think "Bustamante is an easy winner as well." Obviously, Huffington's assessment of Bustamante's strength as a candidate is lower than yours. Do you assume that the reason Huffington (in your opinion) undervalues Bustamante's chances at winning is because he is Latino? Because there is absolutely no evidence of that in the interview you linked.

If you think that Huffington's positions welfare reform and prop 187 were racist, then by all means call her on it.* But to claim that her response in this interview carries with it a "whiff of racism" seems to me to be a smear, and I think you should retract it.
_________________

*Though if you're going to do that, you should consider this from the same interview, which belies your claim of racism:

During my Republican years, I really believed that the private sector could step up to the plate and solve a lot of the social problems we're facing.

And then I saw how difficult it was to raise private money for homeless shelters, or at-risk children's centers. I saw how much easier it was to raise private money for the opera or Harvard or prestigious educational institutions or fashionable museums.

This gets a little bizarre -- according to "few"-- "She is saying that because Feinstein would have won the race, Huffington's role would have been that of a spoiler." Actually, is Feinstein was a sure winner, then Huffington could have run and not be a spoiler at all. It is precisely because Huffington might draw enough votes away from Bustamante to kick the election to a Republican that she threatens to be a spoiler now.

If both Feinstein and Bustamente might lose because of a Huffington presence in the race, then I don't see how her different positions on each person can be justified.

But, of course, "Feinstein would have won the race" is my paraphrase; Huffington's quote was "[b]ut Diane Feinstein could easily have won if she were on the ballot, and I have absolutely zero interest in being a spoiler" (emphasis added). You know this because you quoted this sentence in your original post. So instead of addressing the substance of my comment, you make a cheap rhetorical point. But this still boils down to different assessments of the strengths of Feinstein and Bustamante as gubernatorial candidates.

If both Feinstein and Bustamente might lose because of a Huffington presence in the race, then I don't see how her different positions on each person can be justified.

But again, that's not what she is saying. Huffington's position is that Feinstein might lose the race because of her presence, and Bustament is likely to lose the race with or without her presence. You might disagree with that. You might even be right. But that doesn't make Huffington a racist. I might just as easily argue that your post has a whiff of anti-Greek prejudice in it. But I won't, because that would be silly.

I never said 187 wasn't racist, in fact anthan I never mentioned 187, but that was a california based piece of legislation that can point towards a majority of immigration from a specific ethinic group. National legislation regarding welfare is far far far more complex than that.

However, nathan, give it up, everyone thinks you are way off base on the racism bit. your case to tie her former support for right wing causes to some kind of racism is ridiculous.

Yell at her for being a spoiler from the rooftops, but nothing shows that what she does has anythign to do with racism. AGAIN, garamendi was in at the time fo this interview! She said she drop out for ONE PERSON.

Nail her for the spoiler remark, but your racism remark is way off base.

Kevin-- the 1996 Welfare Reform Act in the form it passed was driven by racism-- caricatures of poor blacks and anti-latino images of immigrants. That was running through the rhetoric and most progressives involved in the fight would agree that it was racist. I was involved in a coalition at the time with well over a hundred organizations, from unions to civil rights groups, who all saw it as fundamentally racist in its form. Sure, there could have been useful reforms to welfare that were not racist-- but that one was not it. So the fact that Arianna supported that bill taints her actions, not to the extent that I don't give her a chance to redeem herself, but it makes distinctions she makes between Feinstein and Bustamante suspect.

And if Huffington thinks that Bustamante cannot possibly win, then her political judgement is so out of whack in my view that she should drop out for being stupid. Given multiple Republicans running and possibly splitting the vote, there is no reason why Bustamante can't win the election.

C'mon dude, this is getting ridiculous. I wrote that Huffington thinks that Bustamante "is likely to lose the race with or without her presence" and you respond with:

And if Huffington thinks that Bustamante cannot possibly win . . .

Who said that? You're not even taking this argument seriously, which is unfortunate given the gravity of the slur you threw at Huffington. I'm going to drop this now because you're obviously unwilling to respond to the actual arguments presented to you.

Ironically, I first started visiting your site when you strongly defended Dennis Kucinich against similar unfounded accusations of racism, which makes this post all the more upsetting.

Few- the comparison with the discussion of Kucinich is illustrative. My point was that while you can look at someone's history, you should also look at context. And I thought the context of Kucinich was of someone in harsh bruising ethnic warfare who would have a hard time avoiding rubbing some people the wrong way.

Here you have Arianna, a rich privileged person who has all sorts of political outlets, and she chooses to jump into a divisive role like this. Yes, I hold people with Arianna's kind of privilege to a much higher standard of anti-racist actions than white folks who are fighting for crumbs of the action at the bottom.

See my update, but I find my comments on Arianna pretty mild. I didn't say she should be ejected from politics or even was a racist. I pointed out that given her compromised history, she should be avoiding what gives an appearance of a double standard on race.

There's nothing wrong with discussing bigotry in modern society. Quite the contrary.

But if your evidence for a charge of racism is that Arianna supported welfare reform and isn't dropping out of the recall race, you've devalued the charge to nothing. It's wrong, and it's bad tactically as well.

Arianna is self aggrandizing? You bet. Flaky, sure. Opportunistic, fine. But racist? That's an incendiary charge, and you really need to have some compelling evidence before you make it against a specific person.

But Kevin, I never said Arianna was racist. I said there was a whiff of racism in her statement and she might be seen as a racist spoiler-- the first a description of a particular action (and I frankly think everyone in our society engages in such inevitably) and the second a likely perception.

My evidence was her double standard on Feinstain versus Bustamante, and I think the existence of such double standards merits being a "whiff" of evidence of racism, which is what I said, a rather light charge overall.

And Arianna did more than "support" welfare reform-- she was in the forward charge on television in pushing it through.

I think there is a remarkable lack of rallying around Bustamante out there in the partisan Democrat blogosphere and I am a bit suspicious that there is an unconscious bias against Bustamante as "unserious" because of being some kind of token latino. I think Arianna engaged in that bias and don't retract stating my suspicion.

As someone who is a progressive, moderate liberal and who votes for Democrats for most (though not all) offices, I think you're way off base... I think you're issuing harsh charges without any basis for doing so, and in the process devaluing the charge and making it mean a lot less when *REAL* racism exists.

Some people who supported welfare reform were racist. But you're saying that supporting welfare reform is in some way an indication of racism itself -- which is absolute garbage. And you're saying that anyone who didn't vigorously oppose Prop 187 is racist. Again, garbage. If this is the case, than 59% of California are racists, many of the Democrats in Congress are racists, and former President Bill Clinton is a racist. Anyone that doesn't support your narrow and limited idea of a "progressive" agenda -- IE, someone who marches in ideological lockstep with you -- is a racist. Anyone that opposes your positions could not possibly be doing so out of conviction or the belief that your ideas are wrong... it's because they're racist.

What's more, Huffington never mentioned Bustamante. You're assuming she was referring to Bustamante even though there were other Democrats in the race when she said it and there are other Democrats in the race now... but fine, let's go off the assumption that she was specifically addressing Bustamante with her comments. It is not racist to campaign against a Hispanic Democrat. It is not racist to seek to become the Governor of California simply because a Hispanic Democrat is in place. And when someone says she'll drop out of the race if the race is joined by a multi-termed senior senator who holds the distinction as "state's most popular politician," but chooses not to bow out for a statewide officeholder who is polling only 18% on his good days... it's takes a lot of gall and a deliberate desire to be inflamatory to attribute all of that to racism.

Like I said, it devalues the term in every way. What's more, it's an attempt to use an inflamatory grenade of a statement to shut down any form of discussion or debate -- something that Republicans most often engage in, and which I'm always disheartened when it's used by a liberal and/or Democrat. Kevin Drum's comparison of your acts to the Republican attempts to paint Democrats as anti-Catholic, was an apt comparison.

You should be ashamed.

"I never said Arianna was racist. I said there was a whiff of racism in her statement and she might be seen as a racist spoiler."

So basically, you went as far as you possibly could to the racist line and made your accusations quite clear, but did a little CYA by refusing to own up to what you were actually saying. "She might be seen as a racist spoiler"? Why yes, because she's being accused of such by you -- and only you, as no one else has made such an indication of viewing her in that light -- but you're just trying to take yourself off the hook by using passive tense.

"Mistakes were made."
"She may be seen as a racist."

Again, it's all pretty low.

Yes- I think that 59% of Californians voted for Prop 187 reflects pervasive racism. I think most people, including myself, express racism in a whole array of matters, larger and smaller. And the 1996 welfare reform law was backed by an array of racist stereotypes about black "welfare queens" and such. So of course the vote reflected a lot of racism and those like Arianna who got politically famous riding that wave of racism deserve condemnation.

It's folks who think that anything short of a hate crime murder is not racism who are missing the boat. I've said repeatedly that I like Arianna and would have liked her to be a strong candidate if no serious Dems ran, so I'm hardly sitting around excommunicating her.

To me this whole thread just illustrates how so many liberals have bought into the myth of social color blindness that they won't admit that fellow progressives, including themselves, may indulge in minor acts of racism, "whiffs of racism." Heaven forbid we discuss double standards, or the assumption of race privilege, or all the other basic analyses of racism that were once common before "political correctness" banished it all into the closet.

Yes, Strom Thurmond was a much, much worse racist. But saying that lots of people also express racist assumptions does not erase that fact. In fact, it helps explain why so many people voted for him, while otherwise often being pretty good people.

Despite the fact that I agree with you that prop 187 was racist, and that not all racism is Trent Lott racism, and even perfectly nice white liberals can let a little racist whiff sneak out every now and then, I STILL think this particular insinuation is both the weirdest and the lamest thing I've ever read on your site and I have to take you a little less seriously now.

As unpopular as this is going to make me. I'm going to have to go with Nathan here. For one thing, I think there is an overreaction and oversimplification of Nathan's statement going on here. As he pointed out, he never said AH was a card-carrying KKK white supremacist racist. He said that there was a hint of racism in her position. And as context, he assumes that racism in varying degrees is pervasive in American society, no one is immune from it-from David Duke to Strom Thurmond to himself, Nathan Newman.
Perhaps I am just attuned to the "whiff" of racism here because I am, like Bustamante, Latino. And I am deeply puzzled (and disappointed) as to why more Democrats and progressives aren't enthusiastically backing the Lieutenant Governor. I have no doubt that were the tables turned and it was a Republican Governor facing a Democratic recall campaign and there was a Latino Lieutenant Governor who announced his (or her) candidacy for the Governor's office, that he would be enthusiastically supported in his bid for office. Shit, Repubs would be beside themselves in ecstacy at their good fortune and thanking Jebus on their hands and knees if that happened.

Now, perhaps Nathan could have explained himself better or phrased his argument more delicately (personally, I think what he said was fine.) But I really think that there is something deeper behind the vehemence with which he is being attacked by so many of his readers. And I think that points to the seriousness of the disease, i.e. racism, and its' wide extent even as it remains hidden from the majority of the afflicted.

" But I really think that there is something deeper behind the vehemence with which he is being attacked by so many of his readers. And I think that points to the seriousness of the disease, i.e. racism, and its' wide extent..."

See, this is precisely what I meant when I stated that this isn't anything more than an attempt to shut down those who disagree with you by painting any disagreement not as rational or coherent or legitimate, but the direct result of racism

Arianna Huffington isn't bowing out for Cruz Bustamante because she has a "whiff of racism" and everyone from Kevin Drum to TAPPED to various commenters objects to that characterization because we, too, are all racists.

It's just a really lame line of attack.

Could Arianna Huffington be racist? Could be. I have no idea. I don't know the lady. I do know that nothing in that interview indicates racism, whiffy or otherwise, and her current actions, by maintaining a run for the governorship, do not in any way demonstrate racism. And I know that if one wants to accuse her or anybody else of racism, they need to have a really good justification for that in the form of actual evidence.

Feel free to label me a Hispanic-hating racist for thinking that incendiary labels like "racist" need to have some strong evidence before used.

See, this is precisely what I meant when I stated that this isn't anything more than an attempt to shut down those who disagree with you by painting any disagreement not as rational or coherent or legitimate, but the direct result of racism

Wrong, it's an attempt to open up the discussion on the topic of racism, invisible though it might be to some. It seems that if someone is not a card carrying KKK member or the like than somehow racism doesn't affect them or their perceptions. I'm not buying. Racism is pervasive throughout American society. We are all implicated. Much of that racism with which we are aflicted is unconscious. Might I suggest that you educate yourself on this topic? I would suggest you start with the writings of Tim Wise and also the journal Race Traitor. I'm not trying to shut down anyone nor am I attacking anyone. I just think that you would profit from reading some truly thoughtful material on racism and American society by some

To return to the Arianna Huffington/Cruz Bustamante thing. I find it disturbing that she doesn't consider Bustamante, the elected Lieutenant Governor of the state, a serious contender for the office of Governor and someone whose candidacy is worth supporting. Such a candidate, one would think, would be a natural to support, barring the presence of extremist political views, criminality or assorted weirdness. What am I, a Latino who has experienced racism, to think in the absence of clearly articulated and deep political differences other than that some element of racism, in all likelihood unconscious, is involved in the perception of Bustamante as not being a worthy contender? I can't help but feel a bit as if Bustamante were being infantilized and deemed a non-person. And I don't think this would be happening if he were white.
But see, contrary to your accusations I have not tried to shut down discussion or anyone. Rather I have tried to open it up and show that the issue of racism, it's extent and it's prevalence in American society is very much at issue here. It is something I wish to discuss and debate sans the hurling of accusations and epithets. However, if you think that somehow racism is conveniently limited to the Trent Lott's and the Strom Thurmond's of the world then I must say we very much disagree.

"Racism is pervasive throughout American society."

I agree. Racism is very pervasive in America, it has not gone away, and it is still something that must be confronted. I've never said otherwise. I think the Ward Connerly initiative that will be on the ballot is a horrible, disastrous idea precisely because I recognize the existence and impact of racism in America.

But that has nothing to do with Cruz Bustamante/Arianna Huffington or people in disagreement with Nathan Newman.

"Might I suggest that you educate yourself on this topic?"

Well, given that you don't really know me or anything about what I know or have experienced, it's somewhat presumptuous to suggest that I lack education on a topic simply because we're in disagreement. No?

"What am I, a Latino who has experienced racism, to think in the absence of clearly articulated and deep political differences other than that some element of racism, in all likelihood unconscious, is involved in the perception of Bustamante as not being a worthy contender?"

This is really, I think, a misrepresentation of her position. Her position was that Feinstein was, to use the term, the 800 pound gorilla. Feinstein was someone that, had she entered the race, would have won it easily by virtue of being the most popular politician in California. Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor or not, does not share this stature.

I don't think anyone's saying he isn't a worthy contender. But he's not Dianne Feinstein, and he doesn't have her popularity or stature, and that has nothing to do with race. The fact that Bustamante is polling between 15-18% so far while being the only Democrat in the race supports this point. He's a very talented, successful, experienced, and viable Democratic candidate for governor, but he simply isn't someone who can win the race without even trying.

You wonder if this would be the case if he were white. Well, John Garamendi is white, and he was in the running for the governorship as well, along with Cruz Bustamante, when Arianne Huffington gave her interview. Both Garamendi and Bustamante are statewide officeholders in California; both were in the race; one is white, one is Hispanic; neither were named by Huffington in her interview, in which she stated that Feinstein is the only person who would have won the race easily.

Garamendi can't win the race easily -- or couldn't, I should say, since he dropped out. But Cruz Bustamante can't win the race easily, either, and his low polling shows that. So while versus Feinstein, Huffington would've been nothing but a spoiler, it's pretty clear that, at this stage of the game, she still arguably has a shot at winning because Bustamante cannot clear the field as the senior senator could have.

Her position was quite simple. There's only one individual right now who has the popularity and stature to clear the field and win without trying, and that's Feinstein; against Feinstein, she'd be a loser at best and a spoiler at worst. But without that one individual in the race, it's pretty clearly a free-for-all where the governorship is up for grabs. And the polling indicates that Huffington isn't so much a spoiler candidate with the current field, but actually a viable contender.

So, if she's a viable contender, why SHOULDN'T she remain in the race? Should she forego that viability and drop out simply because her Democratic opposition is Hispanic? Let's play pretend. What if it was Bustamante who blinked and dropped out early on, leaving John Garamendi as the Democratic standard-bearer. Let's further assume that the polling numbers for the various candidates under this scenario would be identical to what they are now, with Garamendi 10-20 points behind Schwarzenegger and Huffington shown as viable. Should she drop out?

If she shouldn't drop out under that very reasonable scenario, then why should she drop out for the one we currently have?

You guys are seeing whiffs of racism where they just don't exist.

"Racism is pervasive throughout American society."

I agree. Racism is very pervasive in America, it has not gone away, and it is still something that must be confronted...

Good. That is a good starting point and in light of it our disagreement is probably minor.

But that has nothing to do with Cruz Bustamante/Arianna Huffington

Perhaps, but that is what we are debating.

or people in disagreement with Nathan Newman.

I suspect that you've missed my point. It's not the disagreement per se that alarms me. It's the vehemence of it. It's a tipoff that there is something else going on underneath (phew, I was gonna write 'under the hood' then I realized how that could be taken in this context ;-). Look, I can't count the number of times I've seen white people go completely beserk because after some incident with a racial factor involved someone points out that racism. Many white people, many liberals included, don't like that at all and the degree of their resentment and the intensity of their anger are quite frightening to behold. It's a consequence of denial. Note: I am not accusing those who disagree with Nathan of being racists, OK? There's more than just black and white in the world (speaking chromatically here, not with regard to racial categories).

"Might I suggest that you educate yourself on this topic?"

Well, given that you don't really know me or anything about what I know or have experienced, it's somewhat presumptuous to suggest that I lack education on a topic simply because we're in disagreement. No?

Well, I certainly could have said that a hell of a lot more delicately. But don't let ill-considered phrasing sour you on Tim Wise and Race Traitor. You could learn a lot and would in all likelihood profit immensely from reading them. They are some of the deepest and most incisive thinkers on the topic of racism and American society writing today. And that is said without a speck of presumption just as would be the case were I to recommend that someone would profit from reading Plato or Nietzsche or Ibn al-`Arabi or Chuang Tzu, et al.

But, let's skip ahead for some presumption on your part and also because I don't want to end on a nasty note, to wit,

You guys are seeing whiffs of racism where they just don't exist.

I don't need to be told by a white boy when and where I may or may not perceive racism at work, ¿comprende?

This is really, I think, a misrepresentation of her position. Her position was that Feinstein was...*snip*

Perhaps your analysis is closer to the mark. Or, perhaps not. I didn't necessarily agree with Nathan 100% when I jumped in this thread that there absolutely was a racist motivation, unconscious or no, in AH's not supporting Bustamante. But Nathan did put his finger on why I felt irked that CB was not being given enthusiastic support as I thought he naturally should be given his office as Lieutenant Governor and with him sure to grab the growing Latino vote. And while I don't think that Huffington is a racist, that does not dismiss the possibilty that there is a hidden unconscious racist element in her lack of acknowledgment of CB. And, given my personal experience, intuition and knowledge of history, I simply can't ignore the possibilty that Nathan may be right. It certainly feels that way to me. That people would dismiss the possibility out of hand is one reason why I would suggest that they educate themselves concerning racism. I remain agnostic on the matter, though highly suspicious. As I noted above the vehemence and defensiveness with which Nathan is opposed on this matter does nothing to allay my suspicons and everything to aggravate them.

On polital/tactical aspect I reiterate Nathan's point. If Feinstein would be such a shoo-in then AH wouldn't be a spoiler if she ran with Feinstein on the ballot. Feinstein wins no matter what. It's only now, without Feinstein and with Bustamante on the ballot and the race much closer that AH can act as a spoiler against Bustamante. Without AH in the race and with the Republicans divided among a multitude of candidates Bustamante stands a good chance of winning. With AH in the race, she will siphon off many progressive and left-leaning, liberal Democrats from Bustamante and throw the race to the Hollywood star. And look, she's not even worth it, she's not even half a Nader.

I'll end here since, damn you, you've already made me miss Blue Gender on Adult Swim on Cartoon Network! ;-)

Since Bustamante is leading Schwarzennegger by a small margin, Arianna is functioning as a spoiler. So that defense is a nonstarter.

However, I don't think that Arianna was deliberately racist in discounting Bustamante, but unconsciously -- in the way we whites frequently are. I believe she didn't even think about him at all. One of the effects of the racism we are all indoctinated in is simply not SEEING people of color...and that's what I think she is guilty of.

Unconscience racism is why racism is institionalize. In the end this is the major problem with Liberalism. Liberalism is about the preservation of elitism -- and why Liberalism is really about conservatism.

Isn't ironic that Ms. Huffington while she is now a purported "progressive" paid less that $800.00 in taxes over the past two years. Isn't this part of the problem with the rich not redistributing their much inflated wealth and income.

Arianna and Camejo have agreed to defer at some point to which ever of the two had the most support. Nathan your post was shortsighted and unneccesarry.