election

hmmmm....

There seems to be a lot of victim mind out there in the blogosphere these days directed at Barack Obama. For example, Reclusive Leftist's post, "Fuck off, Obama":

Actually, what women everywhere now know is that this country still isn’t ready for a woman President. That if a woman runs for President, she doesn’t stand a fucking chance. No matter how brilliant and capable she is, no matter how many people vote for her, the media will crucify her and some shady half-ass snake oil MAN will be handed the nomination instead.

Fuck off, Obama. Just fuck off.

Soviet-style one-candidate election results have now become a rallying cry for a perception of injustice that their candidate did not win. And if she did not win, well, then, it must be because she's a woman, right?

Echidne asks:

Are feminists really divided so clearly along the lines she describes: age, race and class? Are the waves of feminism really so different in their understanding of what constitutes feminism?

I want to leave this post full of questions for you to think about. But I'm already feverishly thinking about some of these issues in terms of my own feminist definitions, about horizontal and vertical equity, about the onion layers of feminism and about which layers we want to work on, about how someone who wasn't part of any of the waves in person might see them and so on. I think we need to go deeper in the onion, to strip off the layers one by one, not to discard them, but to investigate each of them on our way to the core. That probably doesn't make any sense right now, but I think that the way I write about feminism is more in the world of concepts and theories and less in the world of how they ultimately crop up and interact with other phenomena. Is that bad or good or indifferent? Or even true?

Then there's the whole problem of the class "women" being part of so many other classes, defined by race, income, class, religion, ethnicity, so many ties of solidarity of shared experience, of shared oppressions in some cases, too. How does that all play out in defining feminism?

Is it really the case that the nation cannot accept the idea of a woman president? Or is the unthinkable, unacceptable fact is that we as a nation are ready to elect a woman, but Hillary isn't the one, not now?

Some see it as a tragedy that Hillary Clinton did not win the nomination. But I see the real tragedy that so many women (and some men) are stepping into victim mind and seeing a women president as an impossibility. And I do not feel that this is at all the case.

Let's remember that, when she announced, Hillary Clinton was regarded as the front-runner. She had the name recognition. She had the campaign infrastructure. She had the establishment ties with the DLC. She was generally respected in Washington.

But let's not forget that Hillary Clinton was also problematic from the get-go. She had a ton of Clinton baggage. She had the war vote. She had her image problems, leading to a lot of questions of just who she is. She had a disastrous campaign that ignored caucuses and did not imagine having to go on past Super Tuesday. She had her big-money lobbyist ties, and a general lack of grassroots support financially, compared with Barack Obama. And she had Bill popping up, mouthing off, reminding everybody that when you buy Hillary, you get Bill, too.

And her falling into the racist realpolitik analysis on tape and on camera didn't help. It added a real ugliness to her persistent attacks on Barack Obama.

This was during a campaign when Obama couldn't get his message out, thanks to mainstream media obsession with Reverend Wright, flag pins, stealing phrases from his own campaign adviser, and on and on. Clinton was getting plenty of coverage of her own attacks on Obama, while he was buried in a media agenda of trivialities and distractions. Did one reporter ask Clinton why she wasn't wearing a flag pin? (Or McCain for that matter?)

No, it seems Obama has been the whipping boy in the campaign coverage.

What's the narrative we have this week? Rachel S. writes on Alas, a Blog:

One thing that struck me about Clinton and Obama is that I didn’t notice either one of them make note of the historic significance of having the first black nominee for President on a major party ticket. In contrast, both of them noted the groundbreaking campaign by Hillary Clinton, arguing that she was blazing a path for women, but I didn’t hear the same for Obama. Isn’t that an interesting distinction between racial politics and gender politics? The colorblind ideology silences almost any public discussion of racism by black candidates, who are vying for white votes. In contrast, we don’t have as much silence on the gender front (from the candidates). That has been a fairly consistent pattern in this Presidential election over the past few months.

Let's look at Barack Obama then. John on Liberal Rapture writes:

The problem is Obama. Clinton supporters came to her initially because of her experience. We liked her. We did not - in large part - become fervently committed to her until the media and Obama's campaign began to trash her. Obamites, quit pretending this trashing did not happen. It did. Anyone who spent 32 seconds on Kos-co or watching MSNBC knows you were ugly and relentless in your vilification. Stop lying about it. It is insulting. Our passion for Hillary arose out of her response to this hatchet job. She went from being the best person for the job - to the fierce leader of a huge part of the Democratic Party.

Policy is not the issue. Cue: Obamites going nuts. "How can you say this??? Supreme Court etc etc" This is an ironic response to say the least. You guys have not voted, rallied, and donated to Obama based on policy - ever.

Oh really? Talk about the strawman/straw-woman! What about the major policy difference between Clinton and Obama: the war on Iraq? I'd say there's a very large contingent of voters who would not vote for Clinton because of her vote authorizing the war, and her failure to really own up to it. (Sorry, but just saying "I've taken responsibility for my vote" doesn't cut it.)

Almost to a person the commitment to Obama has been put in terms of personality.

Personality counts, though, doesn't it? We elect a person, not a platform. This isn't parliament. You can't just dismiss personality when it comes to leadership -- true leadership.

Putting what we know about his past aside for a moment - why don't you appeal to Clinton voters based on what you find so suitable in this man? I am not kidding. I am filling in a gap I see in the play for Clinton voters. Honestly - in over a year I have yet to hear WHY HIM?

Why him?

• Because one of the most broken things in DC is the fact that lobbyists are not only dominating the Congressional agenda, they are actually writing the bills, and Obama is running against that idea, while Clinton embraces it.
• Because Clinton is part of the DLC, which has been a huge sell-out to lobbyists.
• Because Obama's voting record is progressive.
• Because Obama paints a vision of the future, while Clinton was running on the past, on her resume.
• Because Obama is a very smart guy who doesn't insult our intelligence when discussing the issues.
• Because I can sense Obama's authenticity, while every time I've seen Clinton over the past 8 years, I've been left wondering who she is, what she really believes.
• Because of the Iraq War, his opposition of it.
• Because I'm seeing a lot of Republicans fascinated and interested in Obama.
• Because Obama speaks centrist but votes progressive.
• Because Obama's financial support comes from 1.5 million individual donations from ordinary people, not from a few thousand elites and lobbyists.
• Because he worked his way up from humble beginnings.
• Because of his background as a community leader.

Them's just a few off the top of my head. But I wonder if the real question here is whether an older generation of people, who tend to have, let's face it, more hang-ups about race than younger Americans, are willing to vote for a black man.

So I'm listening to the crazy hoohah being offered up by pundits about whom Barack Obama should pick for a running mate. Jim Webb? Oh, puhleeze, not a coathanger Dem! Wes Clark? He was interesting 4 years ago, but he started flat and ended flat. Obama is already calm, we don't want to put people to sleep. Hillary? I don't think that will happen, or is even a good idea.

So here's a wild idea: Christine Todd Whitman. What? Am I crazy? Hold a sec:

1. She's pro-choice, so nix that one concern about Republicans.
2. She quit as EPA head for the Bush Administration over their unwillingness to address pollution and global warming.
3. As former governor of New Jersey, she's known and trusted by northeasterners as an administrator. She's not an ideologue.
4. She's a Republican, so disgruntled Hillary supporters turning a jaundiced eye towards the Democrats have something to think about.
5. She's known and respected by liberal pundits and personalities, including Bill Moyers.
6. She's a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican, making it harder for the wingnuts to attack her without alienating much of their base.
7. As an advocate of pushing the Republicans back towards the center, and opponent of third-party endeavors, she plays into Obama's uniter message.

Okay, so maybe it's crazy, and she's not likely to bite on the idea, but you have to admit, it's an interesting idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Todd_Whitman

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/01/03/2008-01-...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christine_Todd_Wh...

Instead, all the talk is about how Hillary's supporters are upset she did not win, how they're all going to go vote for McCain, how Obama is so mean because ... he won? I don't get it.

Anyway, maybe it's time to talk about the disrespect directed at Barack Obama for attacking him and obsessing about Hillary Clinton on the night that the first African American wins the nomination of a major political party.

This is history, people! Watch, listen, hear him, and see if you aren't moved.

Note: He doesn't talk about himself much, and does not talk about this momentous occasion.

This is leadership.

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the greatest generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.

And so it must be for us.

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

And here on this night, the first time an African American -- or a non-white person of any kind -- has won the nomination of a major political party in America, he speaks not of this but of Hillary:

At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning — even in the face of tough odds — is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency — an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A fabulous speech.

Yeah, that'll show him!

John McCain is in favor of forced pregnancy, but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.

John McCain's healthcare plan is "let the market handle it" (like it has been handling it so far), but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.

John McCain is obsessed with fighting wars and extending the war of choice on Iraq, but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.

Why? Because they seem to feel that Hillary Clinton is somehow entitled to the nomination, despite the fact that she didn't get the votes.

What's dangerous for the Democratic Party is that, for many women, the eye of the storm has moved beyond Hillary or anything she does at this point. The offense has turned personal. They are now in their own orbit, having abandoned popular Democratic Websites that reveled in crude anti-Hillary outpourings -- and established new ones on which they trade stories of the Obama people's nastiness. . The women talk of being taken for granted by a party leadership that never spoke out on some of the outrageous Hillary bashing -- and despite the close race, joined the early rush to crown Obama. . .

"Many of us feel slighted," said Lynn Eyrich Harvey, 76, from Los Gatos, Calif. "We feel that years of supporting the party is unimportant, that we are to sit down and shut up -- but be sure to vote Democratic in November." Passions can change, one supposes, but the women I hear from do not see the rampant sexism, particularly toward older women, as isolated gaffes but as a systemic dismissal of them -- an enormous voting bloc that has been reliably Democratic.

"How Obama's campaign has treated Hillary will not be forgotten," Janet Rogers, 55, who runs a Bed and Breakfast in Medina, Ohio, wrote me. "I will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. My husband and friends all feel the same way."

[via TGW]

How did Obama's campaign treat Hillary? She was the one always attacking him, remember?

It was her election to lose -- she had all the advantages early on -- and she lost it. She ran a lousy campaign, reinvented herself every week, and used political rhetoric of the tone and slant that fits perfectly with Karl Rove politics. A lot of Democrats have been looking at Hillary and just saying "ugh, no more."

If things were reversed, and the African American male candidate were the establishment politician defending the DLC's control of the Party, and the woman were the new face who spoke about politics with an entirely different tone and who inspired people into believing that change really is possible, then I'm quite sure the woman would win.

Clinton is a Clinton. Clinton has baggage. But what's worse, her political style, her campaign, her rhetoric all are rooted in the 90s, and sound way too much like more of the same than many would like.

You want to vote for John McCain? Knock yourself out. And think about the Supreme Court you are leaving to your daughters and granddaughters. Think about the fraying social safety net under yet another term of thrashing. Think about the Global Gage Rule and how it's being applied at home. Think about our failing schools. Think about perpetual war. Think about the nail in the coffin of progressive values you are driving in with a vote for McCain. All because your candidate did not win.

More women will run. Women will win. This is not going to change.

But in what kind of America? Change has to happen now, or we are setting this country back even more.

Raw Story:

"I came here for the vote of every American, and our Democratic Party threw us down the tubes," New Yorker Harriet Christian said after yesterday's meeting of the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee.

Senator Clinton is the "best nominee possible" for President, said Ms. Christian, "and the Democrats are throwing the election away. For what? An inadequate black male who would not have been running had it not been a white woman that was running for President! And I'm not going to shut my mouth anymore!"

No, there's no racism here. Noooooo. (Why not simply "an inadequate candiate"?)

No, there's no delusion here. (Take all the Michigan delegates -- Hillary Clinton still loses!) Nooooo.

Why is Hillary entitled to the nomination? How is counting a one-candidate poll "democratic"?

Maybe there really is some intolerance here for the uppity candidate -- the uppity "inadequate black male." (You fill in the epithet.)

"And they think we won't turn and vote for McCain," Christian added. She closed: "Well, I've got news for all of you: McCain will be the next President of the United States!"

Just lovely. Real class. You're leaving the party? Have fun with the Republicans. They share your values.

If Chris Rock had done the same routine mocking Hillary, it would have been a big collective shrug, and perhaps some giggles. Chris Rock has always been politically incorrect and not one to hesitate poking at our sexist and racist attitudes we like to pretend don't exist.

But when those things are said by a priest at Barack Obama's church, it's a scandal?

And Barack Obama is supposed to apologize? Apologize for something someone else said?

So he's resigned his church. If that's what ended up going on at my church when I wasn't there, I wouldn't be inclined to go back, either.

But the self-righteous hand-wringing by pundits about this is nauseating. Why not stick to what Barack says, not what other people say?

Watching the show. The Hillary Clinton supporters are acting like a bunch of goons. It's looking like a scorched-Earth campaign now.

They are even booing party unity.

What do you think? Is she sticking around in case Barack Obama is assassinated? All these slips add up.

Liza writes:

To this blogger, Hillary Clinton has waged a campaign on bringing out the inner white supremacist out of many Americans who are frothing at the mouth over the prospect of having to vote for a black man. Of course, many other pundits and bloggers gave her the benefit of the doubt. Then her infamous, "white Americans" comment happened.

This after a long string of gaffes, innuendos and outright racist attacks that too many people in media decided to let pass and still give her the benefit of the doubt since many were coming from her own surrogates and even her husband.

Then Ketucky and West Virginia happened :

Are you telling me it is not in her mind that she has enough racists supporting her enough to go out and kill Obama for her?

Ouch. I'm not comfortable with the "for her" at the end of the last sentence, but I think there's no doubt that Hillary's dark view of the world contains scenarios where she rises from Barack's ashes.

But tell me, "feminist" Hillary supporters: How can you claim that I or Liza or any of the 40%+ women out there who don't support Hillary are anti-feminist or even misogynist? And what does declaring you'd rather vote for McCain than Obama say about your real feminist credentials? How is Barack responsible for Hillary's problems?

And tell me, realpolitik Hillary supporters: How does a woman who blunders so often make the case that she's "better qualified" to run the Executive Branch? This was Hillary Clinton's nomination to lose, and she's losing it, and losing it ugly -- so ugly that if, by some wild chance, she actually grabs the nomination, she will have alienated so many of those who have joined what's been a newly energized Democratic party that progressivism will suffer for years as a consequence.

How about a little dignity, Senator Clinton? How about acting Presidential instead of like some goon?