racism

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.

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?

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?

Americans who are not Republicans are enemies of America.

That's the message throughout the latest swift-boat smears on Barack Obama, faithfully passed on by our mainstream media, whose measure of accuracy seems to stop at the lips of anyone opening his mouth.

Conservative Republican consultant Keith Appell, who worked with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said Obama's opposition to the war will create a "striking contrast between McCain the war hero and Obama the poster child for the anti-war movement."

"If you are McCain, you want to play up the decorated war hero, loves his country, served his country," Appell said. "You want to play those themes up as much as possible, especially in comparison to Obama and his role in the anti-war movement."

Of course, these same partisans excused George W. Bush's and Dick Cheney's draft dodging, and attacked 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry for being unpatriotic, even though he, too, was a decorated war veteran.

But John Kerry was not a Republican, therefore not a true "patriot" according to the swifties. And that's at the heart of it.

The Conservative Patriotism of the "reinvented" Republican Party is defined thus: Party. Duty. Expedience.

Oh, honor and country may be on the list somewhere, retained for rhetorical purposes. And let's not forget Fire and Brimstone to keep the fear hormone levels high.

So no matter who the Democratic nominee is, he or she could not possibly be a "patriot" because he or she will not put the Republican Party's interests ahead of the nation's.

Thus Barack Obama is attacked with lies, such as that he's a Muslim or he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Last summer, Obama was photographed by Time magazine at an event in Iowa standing with his hands folded....

It has been repeatedly reported that the moment came during the Pledge of Allegiance, but that's not the case.

Don't let truth get in the way of a good swift-boating.

The silliness of swiftie thinking is outweighed only by their utter contempt for non-Party members and their deep pockets from which they pay for expression of that contempt.

Of course, the swifties don't care about the truth. At least so it seems from their vitriolic television campaigns. To them, Obama is already guilty for being a non-Republican, so petty things like truth or honor don't figure into their mantra. (Only weak "liberals" are interested in truth or honor, and thus want to undermine America.)

And so the onslaught continues, even getting to the point of making pin-wearing a measure of patriotism.

"First he kicked his American flag pin to the curb. Now Barack Obama has a new round of patriotism problems. Wait until you hear what the White House hopeful didn't do during the singing of the national anthem," said Steve Doocy, co-host of "Fox and Friends" on the Fox News Channel.

"He felt it OK to come out of the closet as the domestic insurgent he is," former radio host Mark Williams said on Fox.

I never knew wearing an American flag pin was a prerequisite for patriotism.

Things the swifties approve of? Probably the cheap "patriotism" demonstrated in the grit-stained flags pasted onto the backsides of their cars, the sweat-stained flag t-shirts, and let's not forget the American flag underwear, red, white, blue and ready for skid-marks.

Actual respect for the flag does not even enter their minds.

The flag should not be draped over the hood, top, sides, or back of a vehicle or of a railroad train or a boat....

The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery....

The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way....

The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard....

Registered Republican voters not part of the hate brigade must really be in despair. Even Ronald Reagan wasn't this hateful, attacking Americans as enemies of America. It's amazing that some people actually believe the swiftie tripe, but the peddlers push it hard enough, and in enough of their bought-and-paid-for broadcast outlets, that maybe it's not surprising. The Big Lie is a tried and proven technique. Joseph Goebbels must be a true inspiration to the conservative propagandists. After all, didn't the Nazi's do well with rhetorical campaigns pitting German against German? They were quite effective at it, you have to admit.

Why is Ann Coulter even on the air, anyway?

DEUTSCH: ... but you said I should not -- we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or --

COULTER: Yeah.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly -- you're too educated, you can't -- you're like my friend in --

COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean --

COULTER: We have the fast-track program.

DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" --

COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think -- we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners --

Why is religious bigotry being invited onto television shows over and over, anyway? What is the purpose?

Amanda Marcotte has resigned the Edwards campaign.

I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I
bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right.
Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills
don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills,
and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of
my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics
(I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill
Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.

In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to
“silence” me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to
curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m
pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems.

Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time
I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think
about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless
employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because
Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than
harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they
accepted.

Tan Nguyen is upset that he's being investigated:

He became visibly angry while talking about the search. His face turned red and he pounded a fist on his desk as he spoke.

He claims innocence.

"They didn't write it. I didn't write it," he said.

Asked if any campaign volunteers were responsible for the mailing, Nguyen referred questions to his attorney.

And yet he insists on running, and rather than expressing any sort of outrage that someone has betrayed his confidence, he complains about being investigated.

The letter of intimidation sent out to Hispanic voters could represent illegal behavior on his campaign's part. At the very least, someone has been attempting to intimidate voters into not voting -- that is, Hispanic voters into not voting for Tan Nguyen's Hispanic opponent.

The state Department of Justice has opened a voting rights investigation into the letter sent to certain Democratic voters in Orange County.

The letter, written in Spanish, warned: "You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time."

This is pretty consistent with behavior by Republican campaigns elsewhere, notably Ohio in 2004. If Nguyen, as an immigrant, had instead expressed some sympathy for and insight into immigrant life and experiences, especially in this age of resurgent nativistic nee racist politics from the right wing of his own party, maybe he could have capitalized on this and gained some respect in this campaign.

Instead, he plays the victim and decries not the intimidation of voters but rather the investigation into his campaign, which apparently remains the prime suspect of the California Justice Department. His crocodile tears don't seem to be very convincing.

The drama of Tan Nguyen and how his campaign attempted to scare away Hispanic voters from showing up and voting for his opponent, Loretta Sanchez, has been unfolding for a few days now. I really thought this was just a little scandal, another imploding campaign. I figured Tan Nguyen would withdraw and that would be that.

But no. Apparently Tan Nguyen is claiming that the real problem is not the alleged criminal behavior of his campaign, but rather the investigation into that alleged criminal behavior.

A Republican congressional candidate whose campaign is being investigated for sending intimidating letters to Hispanic voters lashed out at his Democratic rival, saying she was fueling the uproar over the mailings.

Tan Nguyen on Sunday rejected calls to drop out of the race to unseat longtime Rep. Loretta Sanchez (news, bio, voting record), and implied the popular congresswoman was behind the probes into the letters warning immigrants they could be deported or jailed for voting in next month's election.

"There has been no crime committed so why is there a criminal investigation three weeks prior to a very important election?" Nguyen asked. "What is going on? Who is fueling this investigation?"

Here's a little background:

Nguyen said Sunday he did not authorize or approve the letters, which warn in Spanish: "You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time."

In reality, immigrants who have become naturalized U.S. citizens are eligible to vote.

California Department of Justice investigators searched Nguyen's campaign headquarters on Friday, as well as his residence and a home listed as belonging to one of his staffers. Investigators are looking into possible voting rights violations.

So who sent these mailings? His campaign office manager! And get this: He fired her last week, but now wants her back.

In other words, he's endorsing intimidating voters, and complaining that criminal investigations into this are the problem.

Nguyen said Sanchez was "fueling this hysteria" and investigators were "terrorizing my family and volunteers" and violating his right to free speech.

If he wants to put this behind him, he should own up and take responsibility for his own campaign. He should apologize. Of course, taking responsibility and apologizing aren't things Republican politicians do these days. But if he can't find it in himself to do this, then he should withraw altogether.