February 25, 2008

A magic wand Part II

I started to reply in the comments to this, but it got long, so I decided to post my comment instead. Not Your Mama of Coyote Angry, a blogger I truly admire, and I have a major disagreement about Clinton and Obama. She's pissed. I'm pissed.

To my post below, she says, in part:

Most of us have already had enough snotty, sarcastic and condescending people in our lives at one time or another (and happily they ultimately come to bad ends) why on earth does anyone think we'd vote for another one?
My reply:

I will tell you what, some of the nastiest stuff I've seen yet has come out of Obama's campaign. No one on his side has YET addressed what Jesse Jackson, Jr, said about her choking up in New Hampshire, saying that she was crying over her looks, and where were her tears over Katrina? The Obama campaign first inserted race into the contest (starting with that Katrina comment) and then turned it around and accused the Clintons of being racists to such a ridiculous degree that for anyone on Clinton's team to even mention the fact that Barack happens to be black, or refer to a historical fact about a previous black presidential candidate, they are pilloried, and drawn and quartered in the public square. Jeezuz on a triscuit!

I've yet to see Obama speak out against the blatent mysogyny of this campaign season, and in fact he makes comments like "Periodically, when she's down she lashes out..." He's playing the old, wink, wink, nudge, nudge "well, you know how women are .. "

And hoo baby, I saw some real viciousness coming from a couple of his supporters at our convention yesterday.

I find it incredibly frustrating that supporters on his side and the rest of the mainstream media are demanding that she leave the contest when they are just about a 100 delegates apart in votes and three of the biggest states have yet to vote. If the situation were reversed I wouldn't be calling the game for Hillary. I'd be happy if she was ahead, but neither has the nomination buttoned down, so why should either of them quit? And what would Barack's supporters be saying about Florida's delegation if he had pulled off a win there or at least came in a close second? What would they be doing if the Michigan uncommitted numbers had beaten Clinton?

He has been condescending, and he has used right wing talking points that undermine core Democratic values, and frankly, I find that just as offensive as you find this.

It seems to me that he is riding a wave of magical thinking and many of his supporters have just projected their own beliefs on him. Even he admits that he serves "as a blank screen on which people of vastly different stripes project their own views.” Whoa. So, just exactly what is it that we are getting?

I saw the same phenomenon in GW Bush supporters and if frightens me that our side seems to be engaging in the same blind adoration, and asking for no proof that he can actually do the things he says he can do, and dismissing any sort of evidence to the contrary. I don't have these same sort of illusions about my candidate. I know that I am not going to always be satisfied. I don't believe that she alone can rescue our country or Washington. I've been around the block too many times to know that just isn't possible. Hell, I'm a member of the Democratic Party and I've been to too many meetings where people who are seemingly on the same side can't agree.

So anyway, NYM is pissed at me, and she's pissed Hillary. I'm not pissed at NYM. But yeah, I am pissed at Obama.

I sure as hell hope this rend in the party is fixable.

14 comments:

Not Your Mama said...

I don't at all want her to drop out. A) she has as much right to run as anyone else and B) the more she keeps on the more she is damaging herself so why would I not wish for her to fight all the way to the convention??? She opens mouth and out comes confirmation of every ugly thing many people have said about her...go Clinton.

Frankly I wanted to know where were her tears not just over Katrina but over all the young people she sent to their deaths. It pissed us off when she went on at the last debate about the poor, brave, injured soldiers she saw when she spoke at the Intrepid Center, see, she helped get them there while WE were among the thousands who helped fund that center.

Periodically, I use the word "periodically". It would never have even occurred to me to associate it with my menses. Maybe, just maybe, it was intended that way but to me that's a helluva long stretch.

" Even he admits that he serves "as a blank screen on which people of vastly different stripes project their own views.”

You know some do. They do that with any candidate but yes, more so with him. Unfortunately I've been following this guy for years so that doesn't quite hold up where I'm concerned. Where he lost me briefly was when early in his campaign he was listening too much to asshat advisors and hanging with that horses ass of a John Edwards. As soon as he kicked the advisors down to their proper places he went back to showing me the Obama I liked in the first place.

I sure as hell hope this rend in the party is fixable.

Highly doubtful now. We're going to lose people either way we go. If Obama wins we'll lose some of the Clinton people, if Clinton wins we lose 90% of the African-American community....forever. Also the majority of the next generation. And me and people like me.

carissa said...

Are you seriously suggesting that the Clintons, for all their work with the Black Community all these years, have been closet racists all this time?

Just My Thoughts said...

I watched Mrs. Clinton's speech about the magic wand. I get the impression that if I were to know her in person she would consider me a pie-in-the sky fool for thinking Mr Obama might have a good agenda by bringing people together to accomplish some common goals. Mrs. Clinton seems to say this cannot be done. She seems to imply that bringing the American people out to care about and take care of their own nation is a stupid and futile effort. As a consequence she seems to offer only more of the same conflict and stalled government we have enjoyed for some years now. From listening to her retoric I get the feeling she wants me to feel foolish for supporting a person who has a different view.
Barak Obama has not offered a "Magic Wand" he has offered a chance for people to become involved in bringing our country back from the bottom of the Septic tank that the current administration has led us to. Mr. Obama has not said it would be easy. He has not said it will be a paradise of reform. He is offering a chance for a change. We as a people must use it wisely.
He has however said it will be hard to do what we need and that we all must be involved. This is not a give away but a chance for Americans of all races and social classes and political views to step up and work to make America a better place.
As for the misogynist label that keeps being used, some people had better look up the definition. I do not like Mrs.Clinton because of her policies and the way she wants to administer them. It has nothing to do with being a misogynist.
Now I have to say the use of the word period does not automatically mean we hate women. A period is a punction mark. Note I used a period at the end of my sentance. OMG I did it again. I must be a misogynist because I use the peroid. The use of this argument is suspect at best because it assumes facts not in evidence. But I may be wrong about that, as I seem to be considered a misogynist just because I am a man and don't like Mrs. Clinton. Is this gender classification in reverse?
I seems to me the implication is that I am a fool and a misogynist to belive in Mr. Obama. The alternative is of course is to pick Mrs. Clinton to make my self smart and female friendly.
I for one know who and what I am.
I really resent being told I don't know shit by some one who knows shit about me.
A little something from the other point of view.
JMT

Not Your Mama said...

Carissa: nope, not at all, especially not Hillary. The problem is not that they are racist, the problem is that the Black community sees them as willing to sacrifice their first viable chance to reach some kind of parity for the sake of their own political ambition.

The 2nd problem is that for at least some portion of the Black community the fact that Bill Clinton made remarks he made was the ultimate betrayal. It played to the deepest paranoia held by some that "scratch the surface and all white people think the same about us". Had McCain or some southern douchebag said it it would have been a so what moment, we expect that from them. Bill Clinton KNEW what he was saying when he said it in ways many whites would be clueless about and he did it anyway, deliberately and with malice aforethought....there's your saboteur. Bill knew he was destroying his wife before he ever opened his mouth.

Hillary's problem is a somewhat clueless view of Black America. If you do not know why putting up Black women supporters to speak against a Black man is not a winning strategy I'm not going to write the book to explain that one.

Doesn't matter if *I* think either of them is racist or not though, it matters what those voters think and I can tell you they are not coming back.

carissa said...

The problem is not that they are racist, the problem is that the Black community sees them as willing to sacrifice their first viable chance to reach some kind of parity for the sake of their own political ambition.

So a white Democrat cannot run if a Black Democrat is running? We are all supposed to just stand down and make way? Ambition - it couldn't possibly be that Hillary really cares about this country, their community included, and has some great plans that she would like the chance to see implemented?

If you do not know why putting up Black women supporters to speak against a Black man is not a winning strategy I'm not going to write the book to explain that one.

Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about. But don't you think this is sad? That Black women cannot feel free to support the candidate of their choice and to be able to speak out about it if their candidate's opponent happens to be a Black man?

It appears to me, that for all the pretty words, that Martin Luther King's words of black children and white children playing together, and being judged on the content of one's character and life's work means nothing, when you get down to it, and that someone from one's own race who breaks that community's taboo suddenly turns that community, not just against the person breaking it, but against the object of their praise, and the entire party that person represents. If that's all it took, we are indeed in worse shape than I thought.

And what sort of world will face the biracial children that my daughter and son-in-law will bring into this world? Will they constantly be told by society that they must choose one over the other?

Truthfully, there are tears in my eyes right now.

More than anything, it grieves me that I now find myself looking at the Black community in a whole new light. And I don't want to go there. I never wanted to.

Not Your Mama said...

Yes it is sad. What is sadder is that while no one left alive today personally did it the truth is that this nation spent over 200 years decimating the social and family structure of Black America and this is what we've done.

Recovery from that kind of destruction is multi-generational and leaves deep scars long after the cause of them has escaped the conciousness of those not affected.

The truth is Clinton probably lost the minute Obama declared. Even if she wins, she loses. We all lose and the wounds get re-opened.

No, the odds are much better your bi-racial grandchildren won't face these kind of hard choices if we do the right thing now. If we shoot this opportunity in the foot, well, there will be repercussions and the game continues. It won't matter what kind of "good" reasons we might have for doing it, what will matter is the way it will be perceived. I'm simply for ending it now.

kelly said...

It seems to me that the necessity of being good at actually running the country is getting lost in the comments here.

Obama was drafting off Clinton last night, he always has in the debates.

That's not a leader of any color.

We need a president who will get health care (yes, for ALL). We need a president who can extricate us from Iraq without leaving Iraqis behind. We need a president who will take a STAND for god's sake.

That person is not Barack Obama. Nothing about trying to elect him heals anything.

If we want the wounds caused by racial (and Gender) inequality to heal, WE have to do it. Not some politician in Washington.

Change comes in Washington LAST not FIRST.

WE have to do it, day by day, moment by moment, decision by decision, face to face. Healing doesn't come vicariously through a politician.

Hillary Clinton is most qualified and most likely to perform well as President. It's a job and this is an interview process.

She's Hired.

kenoshaMarge said...

This country certainly owes an apology to every descendent of every slave that was held in bondage in this country.

But what of the women in this "freedom loving" country that weren't even allowed to vote until 1920? How do I explain that to my seven granddaughters?

I am also a little concerned about the rhetoric that suggests that somehow Senator Clinton is the only one responsible for the war in Iraq and the resulting carnage. I was against the war from the gitgo but that's not too surprising coming from an old anti-Viet Nam war protester.

But in all honesty, did anyone back in 2001 think George Bush and Dick Cheney were as inept, evil, and unconcerned with the welfare of this country as they turned out to be? I knew I didn't like them and hadn't voted for them but the dept of their depravity and their corruption really is a constant and continuing surprise.

I am sure that Hillary Clinton, as well as the other Democrats that voted to give George Bush the authority to wage war did not then know what a complete and utter disaster he was going to be. If your crystal ball and Senator Obama's crystal ball told you otherwise, good for you.

But the fact is that since Senator Obama has been in the United States Senate he has pretty much gone along with most Democratic issues and votes. Are we to believe he would have shown the courage of say, a Russ Feingold had he actually had to cast a vote to give Bush the power? Consult crystal ball once more.

weeone said...

This shows why race relations are still a problem in this country. Electing a black President is not going to fix what is wrong in the black community. Each individual is responsible for him and herself. I have endured discrimination as a woman. But I don't hold it like a badge and beat people over the head with it every chance I get. And I certainly do not owe anyone an apology because they had a relative from a century ago who was a slave. Women have been oppressed for longer than blacks and this election has shown it even more stark than before. I would like some justice for all of the discrimination I get for being a woman. But I am not going to wait on it or wait for a politician or amyone else to define what kind of character I have or life I lead. Electing a President is not about a personal agenda or retribution for a past wrong. It's about electing the most qualified person-and Obama IS NOT IT.

Gina said...

Thank you so much for your post, The Clinton Adminstration did more for AA community then any presidency since LBJ. The average income of the AA community went up 7k in the Clinton term, it is down down down over the last 7 years. The Clinton Admin kept Affirm Action alive when Newt and the GOP tried to kill it. Many in the CBC and many of Obama's advisers like Susan Rice got their start by being appointed by Bill Clinton who appointed more people of color than any other president in our history. Obama would not even show up at the SOTBU because he already had those LA votes and didnt want to be seen with Dick Gregory and Al Sharpton apparently. Hillary Clinton came on stage after she was trashed by Sharpton and Gregory, showing what class she has and that she still supports the AA community. People should atop calling on a vote for Obama to end racism. A vote for Obama will not end racismm, and Obama is weakening our best shot at universal health care which is the number 1 need of the AA community outlined in Tavis Smileys covenant. If Obama is the nominee and I dont think he has the experience to be the nominee, if he is we will see how fast he runs from his community when facing the GOP attack machine.He does not seem to have the courage of his convictions, thus his attempt to wiggle around rejecting Farakhan last night.There seems to be a desire to 'not question our best shot at a black President' too closely or his chance wlll be 'ruined'. This shows racism is still alive, you need to question all the candidates. What has Obama said he will do for the AA community? What specific policies has he promised to enact? Hillary has said she will put the training centers for her 5 mill green jobs in AA inner city areas to ensure that 1 million black men who are unemployed get good jobs. She has worked to reform the prison system. Obama never touches any of these issues cause he is too busy cozying up to the angry white male vote. Thin about it.

kenoshaMarge said...

Sorry weeone if I didn't make myself clear. I don't think any living individual owes the descendents of slaves an apology. I do think that a country that touts itself as the greatest Democracy in the world does. I also think, for the same reasons that this country owes the women of this country an apology for the fact that we have been allowed to vote for less than 100 years.

And I certainly don't intend to apologize since 3 of my 4 grandparents didn't arrive in this country til after the civil war and the remaining Grandfather was 1/2 Oglala Souix and 1/2 French Canadian and also did not become a resident of this country until he was run out of Canada for having the audacity to trifle with a white woman. I hope that clears my position up a little.

Stephen A said...

What kelly, kenoshamarge and weeone said is right on the money. Please consider their admonitions.

Regardless of how one feels about Hillary Clinton, a true examination of the record shows who really injected race and when. Sean Wilentz says it very eloquently in "Race Man".
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

Check it out!

MaryBeth said...

Come on, everybody, can't we all just get along? This is the greatest fun we've had in a Presidential campaign in my adult life (and I'm about to turn 47!!!)and we can't let it become a yukky nasty hating thing. Get some perspective, folks! We've had so many years of Bush administrations my high school students don't remember another family being in power, and this year we have the chance to elect not only someone who isn't a Bush, but either the first woman or the first African-American ever. There's nothing bad here, only good can come from this! Nothing currently up for consideration could be worse than what we have right now, it can only get better no matter who we elect. I can't remember an election where that was the case. We should be celebrating, fantasizing dream tickets, dancing in the streets, not tearing down our allies (who will be needed to keep McCain out of the running). This isn't the big fight, save your energies for later!

Arturo Ui said...

I find it sad that Hillary supporters have left it up to Sean Wilentz to push propaganda for them. The man's TNR column makes no sense--Taylor Marsh could've done a better job. One sentence, he claims the Obama campaign is race-baiting; the next sentence, his evidence is something some dumbass in the media said. And this pairing repeats, ad nauseum, throughout the column. You wanna blame the media for a good share of Hillary's troubles, I think that is fair and accurate. You want to assign the media's bias to Obama? I got a bone to pick with you. Show me the evidence before people engage in this awful guilt-by-association.