The power of unconscious bigotry

When the history of this presidential race is written, there will be much said about the influence of both sexism and racism on the outcome.

Already much being is being written and said about sexism in the media and how it may have negatively impacted Senator Clinton's campaign. Certainly, there were sexist comments on the cable shows, and in the blogs, but I'm not sure how much sexism factored into voting. I'm not sure we will ever know, in that the media has not focused on polls that tried to measure the effect of gender on voting. By way of contrast, they have looked at polls that asked primary voters whether race was a factor in their vote.

In one CBS poll of voting in Pennsylvania, voters were asked about both race and gender as possible factors in their voting. The findings:

About one in five voters said the race of the candidates was among the top factors in their vote. About as many said that about the candidates' gender. White voters who said race was a factor supported Clinton over Obama by 3-to-1, while whites who said race wasn't a factor divided between Clinton and Obama more evenly. But race and gender played out as factors in very different ways, with Obama's race apparently a negative for him among white voters, while Clinton's gender was a positive factor for her among men and women who said it contributed to their votes. Those who said gender was a factor actually tended to favor Clinton, while Obama did better among those who said gender was not a factor.

So, according to this poll at least, gender was a strong reason why people voted for Clinton, while race was a strong factor in why white people voted against Obama.

The media, especially the cable outlets, certainly displayed some ugly sexist commentary, and much less (from my observation) blatant racism. But how this plays out in actual influence on voters seems to be a different story. Decent people were mostly repulsed by the sexism they saw on television and the internet, as they would have been, I believe, by blatant racist comments, had they occurred.

We did not see many overt racist comments, however, mainly because they are so swiftly identified and punished, as they were with Don Imus last year. There were, though, covert racist attacks against Obama. For example, the FOX News highlighting of Obama's middle name, and the huge coverage of the outrageous statements of Jeremiah Wright (in contrast to the much briefer coverage of the equally outrageous statements of pastors supporting Senator McCain), are covert ways of scaring voters into rejecting Obama. A black pastor was portrayed as scarier than a white pastor, and an Arabic middle name hinted that Obama must be a Muslim. Combine that rumor with assorted internet rumors about Obama's schooling and family, and the connection of Obama's pastor with Louis Farrakhan, and you are playing guilt by association, and portraying Obama as a black Muslim who is unacceptable to white America – all without ever uttering a racial slur or talking about Obama's skin color.

It seems to me that this kind of coded racist attack on Obama is far more damaging than any boorish sexist comments against Senator Clinton. The sexism of the media may actually have strengthened her image in the electorate, as many people rejected and criticized it. However, the coded attacks on Obama were not attacked as racist by the media or regular voters. Why? Because there are many voters who don't think there's anything unusual or odd about feeling uneasy about a black nominee for president. These people do not consider themselves racist or prejudiced in any way, yet there is something in them that sees African Americans as different, foreign, and not "one of us." Barack Obama spoke to this when he talked about his white grandmother wanting to cross the street when she saw a black man walking towards her.

My elderly mother, one of the kindest and caring people I know, a woman who would help anyone in need, asked me yesterday if I thought a presidential victory by Obama would mean "the blacks would take over everything."

After I picked myself up off the floor, I expressed complete horror at what she said, as I have never known her to express racial prejudice.

She said "Well, they were treated pretty badly by the white people. Maybe they would want to have power over them."

We didn't get into a discussion as we were getting ready to go to the doctor, but I have thought a lot about what she said and wondered whether it was indicative of what a lot of people of her generation are thinking.

I remember a few weeks ago, when Barack Obama was a guest on The Daily Show, John Stewart asked him the following tongue-in-cheek question: "Sir, if you become president will you enslave the white race?" The audience got a good laugh, but what if this is a real fear, not just a joke on The Daily Show?

If my mother is any indication, Barack Obama may have a real problem becoming president. While younger and more educated voters have little problem with Obama's race, older Americans, good and decent people like my mother, even those who would never say or do anything overtly racist, still harbor unconscious negative thoughts and feelings about African Americans that may make them unwilling to vote for Barack Obama.

So while it cannot be denied that overt sexist comments were used against Hillary Clinton, it is also true that covert racist campaigns are being waged against Obama. These campaigns work, in part, because unconscious, irrational fears and negative appraisals of African Americans still lurk in the psyches of many white Americans.

This election will, to some extent, be a test of whether there are enough young and enlightened voters to outnumber those who, whether consciously or only unconsciously, carry the last remnants of our nation's hideous history of racial bigotry.

The case against Hillary (a final argument)

In addition to seeing Barack Obama as a magnificent candidate, promising to turn the page away from the hysteria of the sixties, and bringing an entirely new approach to politics and governing, I voted for him because I just didn't want the Clintons back in the White House.

I watched Hillary's speech yesterday and it was an admirable one, a gracious one, a historical one. It took grit, courage, dignity and great loyalty to her Party to be able to deliver it. I applaud her for it. If that was all I had ever seen of Hillary, and if she was the only candidate presenting a progressive platform, I would have been as enthusiastic about voting for her as many of her supporters.

But that is not all I know of Hillary, and so I could not support her.

It boiled down to this, really: I did not want the Clintons to return to the White House. I've written about this a lot, and most recently in great detail, but the bottom line is that the damage Bill Clinton did as president, in the long view of history, will be seen as far greater than the good he did.

Yes, he presided over a good economy. Yes, he kept us out of major wars. Yes, the nineties were, on the surface at least, good years. The Clinton administration, however, was supposed to move us away from the conservative hold on government during the previous 12 years, and it did not. Health care reform failed, largely because of Hillary Clinton's poor management of it, and Bill Clinton botched his promise to allow gays to serve openly in the military. As a result of the Clinton arrogance which resulted in this mismangagement, the Republicans took over Congress two years after Bill Clinton was inaugurated and held onto it for 12 years. Then we saw a sharp right turn, with welfare reform and NAFTA two of the highlights.

Bill Clinton's term was full of drama, intrigue, and conspiracy theories by both parties. The Republican noise machine tried desperately to find a scandal with which to tarnish Clinton and they finally did. And even as they discovered Monica's blue dress, Hillary was on television talking about the vast right wing conspiracy. The impeachment, fully the fault of Bill Clinton's libido, though at the time we blamed only the Republicans, cost the country the attention of the president and his party and ended the possibilility of any more help for the people. The Clinton drama also, in great measure, cost Al Gore the presidency as people turned to another Bush to "return dignity to the White House."

The great hope we liberals felt in 1992, with the election of Bill Clinton, turned out to be false hope. After the destructive policies of Reagan-Bush, Bill Clinton should have been able to begin a twenty year liberal dominance of government. But his personal character flaws, starting with his narcissism and recklessness, were at least partly responsible for the presidency of George W. Bush and all the horrors it has inflicted on this country.

Perhaps it is fitting that one of the three men most responsible for Hillary's loss is Bill Clinton himself (the other two are Mark Penn, failed strategist, and Barack Obama, who out campaigned her). With Bill's remarks after South Carolina, his angry outbursts and his attacks on the media, Bill did his wife no favors. He has not changed. He still causes trouble.

Hillary Clinton is a talented politician, a gifted and brilliant woman. But she is still married to the man who is responsible for allowing George W. Bush to inhabit the White House, end what should have been twenty or more years of a progressive hold on the White House, and destroy so much of our democracy, our reputation in the world, and our planet. And if elected president, she would bring that man back to the White House with all the risks that would present.

That was a risk I was unwilling to take.

Hillaryland

In Hillaryland, Hillary Clinton is losing because the nation isn't ready for a woman president, the media is sexist, and people (especially Barack Obama who didn't have the courtesy to wait his turn) haven't been fair to her.


It's not sexism that has doomed Hillary's campaign, as she is now claiming. Hillary Clinton will lose the Democratic nomination because of her flawed campaign, her wrong message, her focus on the past rather than the future, her connection to the Washington establishment, her Iraq War vote, her family name, and her behavior as a candidate.

Twelve reasons Obama will win in November

I may be premature in this, but I believe Barack Obama will not only win the Democratic nomination, but will become the 44th President of the United States and the first person of color ever to hold that office.

Here's why:

1. McCain is too old. He is already making mistakes on the campaign trail that signal memory problems. On the debate stage, next to John McCain, Barack will look more youthful and sound more wise. The difference will be obvious and will not help McCain.

2. People are tired of the War in Iraq. In a year in which the American people are weary of war, being a war hero is simply not enough to get one elected. It doesn't help that McCain says the American poeople won't mind being in Iraq for 100 years.

3. The Republican brand is on life support. Congressional special elections in Republican districts are all going Democratic, even when the Republicans try to link the Democratic candidates with Obama and Jeremiah Wright.

4. The Baby Boomers' time is over. Young Americans are supporting Obama in large numbers and are convincing their parents and grandparents that they know what they are doing in supporting Obama. Obama offers a refreshing vision of an America no longer looking to the conflicts of the sixties to define itself.

5. McCain offers nothing to soothe the ills of the nation. The economy, gas prices, and health care are three of the biggest concerns of the American people and these are three areas where McCain has no solutions. Obama has or will present comprehensive plans for relief in all three areas, and will make McCain – who must please the conservative base that wants limited federal programs - look out of touch.

6. The smear machine and dog whistle have lost their power. The typical Republican tactic of painting the Democrats as weak on defense, as "defeatocrats" or as appeasers will backfire on them. The American people will remember that they fell for that in 2004 and they will not do it again. And while racist dog whistle code words may be used against him, Obama has the temperament and the strategy to overcome this.

7. "Liberal" is no longer a dirty word. The American people are actually much more liberal than the Republicans think they are, and conservative ideology is both out of fashion and exposed as a fraud. The people want answers and solutions, and they want them from government, not from the unregulated private sector, which has proven to be so corrupt and brought them so much misery.

8. Evangelicals are divided. John McCain will not have enthusiastic support from the evangelical community, both because he is not seen as one of them and because the community is not as united as it once was. Young evangelicals are more open-minded than their parents and grandparents, and some Democratic issues, like the importance of protecting the environment, are very important to them. Wedge issues like abortion and homosexuality will simply not have the power in a year when Bush's war and the Republican economy are weakening our country and hurting the average family.

9. John McCain will be seen as running for Bush's third term. There are too many sound bites and photos of McCain supporting Bush, and too many votes for Bush's policies, to enable him to adequately distance himself from the nation's most unpopular president ever. McCain's reputation as a "maverick" will not hold up. More likely he will be seen as a one time maverick who is now a political opportunist, what the Republicans like to call a "flip-flopper."

10. Barack Obama is more charismatic than John McCain. Not only does he represent a new kind of politics, one that moves beyond the conflicts of the sixties, but he is generating tremendous enthusiasm among his supporters, based partly on his persona. Obama has charisma and is able to win people over once they get to know him. The candidate with the most charisma (eg. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton) always has an advantage over his opponent.

11. The American people want a leader, not a follower. Obama has set the themes of this campaign, and McCain is now trying to imitate him, just as Hillary tried to do. Obama's early recognition that this is a year in which the American people want change, and his early success in communicating that message, has put McCain in the position of also calling for change, and thus being a follower rather than a leader.

12. Obama has the right temperament. Presidents are expected to be measured in their emotional responses. Hillary Clinton and the Republicans have and will throw just about anything at Obama in order to defeat him. In every instance so far, Barack has remained calm. He shows the right amount of humor in response to some tactics, and indignation in response to others. There are no sound bites, no videotape, and no anecdotes of Obama losing his temper. This is not true of McCain, who is known to lose his temper quite often.

Hillary for Vice President - in 2012

Now that the media has declared victory for Obama in the presidential primary, and large numbers of superdelegates are announcing their support for the Illinois Senator, talk turns to the choice of a vice presidential running mate.

There is a movement underway to pressure Obama into choosing Hillary, to make what some consider an unbeatable ticket, a "dream ticket."

The positives are obvious. Hillary is popular with women and senior citizens, and having her on the ticket might make blue collar voters, who otherwise would reject Obama because he is young, or inexperienced, or African American, change their minds and vote Democratic.

But the negatives are just as obvious. Hillary does not compliment the change message Obama brings and she has said many negative things about her rival that would be difficult to erase. She also insists he cannot win, and some think she even wants him to lose. Furthermore, the baggage Hillary Clinton brings could hurt Obama more than help him. The Republicans are prepared to run against Hillary, and having her on the ticket, even in second place, would give them the opportunity they crave. Finally, even though the American people are wanting a change election, there may be only so much change they can tolerate. It is asking a lot of the people to vote for a non-traditional candidate, a candidate who looks different from any president in the past. To put two non-traditional candidates on the ballot may be asking too much of a stretch from the people.

There is a rumor out in medialand that Michelle Obama has put the kibosh on a Hillary Clinton candidacy and whether or not that is true, it is more true that the real person who would probably sink the chances of Hillary Clinton being on the ticket is Bill Clinton.

Can anyone really imagine what a nightmare it would be for a President Obama to constantly have to contend with Bill Clinton running around the country shooting his mouth off? He has proven himself to be a loose cannon in this campaign, one who says things that are inappropriate and damaging. Why would that change after his wife becomes vice president, especially if he still harbors the belief that his wife should have been president? Obama doesn't need an arrogant former president whispering in the ear of his vice president, and possibly undermining Obama's policies and/or competing for the spotlight.

Besides wanting to choose someone who complements his change message, Obama needs a vice presidential candidate, preferably a Hillary surrogate, who will help him win a big state he needs: Ed Rendell, Ted Strickland, Jim Webb, or Evan Bayh, for instance who could help him win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, or Indiana. There are other calculations, of course, and ultimately I trust that Obama will pick wisely. I do not think he will nor should choose Hillary Clinton - at least not for the 2008 election.

However, if Obama wins in 2008, has a great four years, which I trust he will, and proves himself to the American people so that his re-election is not in doubt, I think he could change vice presidential candidates and ask Hillary Clinton to run with him in 2012. By then, if she has worked well with him from her position in the Senate, she might not be perceived by Obama supporters as the aggressive, divisive candidate they see now.

It is not without precedent that a president chooses a different vice presidential candidate for his second term. FDR chose a different vice president each term and it seems to have worked out well for him.

With Obama, it would mean choosing a vice presidential candidate who would be willing to only serve one term, someone who had no real aspirations to the presidency, and who would know they would be asked to step aside in 2012. Because for this to help Obama, he would have to make it known to Hillary in this election season that he was planning to do this. This could be the motivation for Hillary to support him enthusiastically in the fall.

But what would be in it for Hillary? Three things. Th first two relate assume the scenario of an Obama victory. The third becomes operative with a possible Obama loss. In this sense, whether Obama wins or loses, Hillary can win.

First, if she became vice president in 2012, with a very popular president, she would be in a great position to run for the presidency in 2016. Yes, she would be 68, but that is still younger than John McCain is now. Second, she would be making history as the first female vice president, and then possibly use that as a springboard to become the first female president. I believe the public might be much more willing to accept a diverse ticket in four years than it is today.

Finally, if she is willing to sit out this election as a vice presidential candidate, but still campaign vigorously for Obama, and Obama loses anyway, she is not part of a losing team and can come back in 2012 to run for the presidency again. (This scenario is not helpful to her, however, if she either doesn't campaign for Obama, or campaigns in such a lukewarm way, perhaps even "slipping up" and saying negative things about him, that Obama's supporters and the party may not give her another chance.)

So that's my idea. Choose a more traditional vice presidential running mate now, one who would be willing to step aside in four years, and promise Clinton the nomination in four years if she works vigorously for an Obama campaign in 2008, and helps him enact his agenda once he is in the White House.

Hillary Clinton and the subtle racism of her campaign

My husband and I have been watching the John Adams miniseries on HBO these past few weeks. In fact, we upgraded our Dish Network package just to be able to see it.

It has not disappointed. It has educated me about the characters of John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, as well as the other players in the early American nation. The sets, the costumes, and the acting are all, in my opinion, superb. Next week is the last episode and I will be sorry to have this television class in American history end.

The thing that struck me the most about this most recent episode, however, was watching the construction of the White House using slave labor. As Abigail Adams said as she stared at the horrible scene of black men and women breaking their backs to build this house which at the time they believed would never be inhabited by a black president, "nothing good can come of this."

I also watched the documentary Finding David Wilson, last Friday on MSNBC. For those who may have missed it, it was a film depicting the meeting between David Wilson, the great grandson of a former slave, and a second David Wilson, the grandson of the former slave owner. Through the film the two get to know each other, and while walking in the ruins of the fomer slave quarters, the black David Wilson realizes that the sacrifices of his ancestors had not been in vain in that their suffering ultimately led to the benefits he enjoyed as a free and equal citizen of the United States.

Yet, in spite of David Wilson's optimism and reconciliation with the family that previously owned his family, we know that racism remains in America. It may be quieter, it may not be verbalized, but it is there. It is what is behind much of Hillary Clinton's pitch to the superdelegates that Obama is not electable. When she says she is the one who can win in big states like California it is at least partly because she knows many Latinos have animosity to African Americans. And when she says only she can garner the votes of blue collar workers, or laid off workers in the rust belt, it is because she knows many of them would never vote for a black man. That this may very well be true is distressing, that Hillary Clinton would use it to defeat her African American opponent is despicable.

Instead of being part of the solution to the ongoing racism in this country, Hillary Clinton, by using Obama's race against him, however under the radar she keeps it, is part of the problem.

We Obama supporters always knew it would be an uphill battle to elect the nation's first black president. We are neither naïve nor stupid. But the one thing we always hoped was that as democrats we would all pull together and defy the odds. We hoped that a powerful ex president like Bill Clinton would get behind Obama and urge every democrat, independent and open minded republican to vote for him. And we hoped that Hillary Clinton, realizing that her chances for the nomination were slim to none, would graciously concede defeat, and lend her support to him. Only by having the support of every influential former democratic president and vice president, governor and mayor, senator and congressperson, could the Democrats hope to overcome the lingering racism in this country and send the first black president to Washington, to live in the house that was once built by slaves, men and women who could not have imagined that a man of their own race would ever inhabit it.

But Hillary and Bill Clinton have chosen not to do that. They have demeaned Obama after his win in South Carolina, attacked him in Nevada, accused him of unfair tactics, of not being black enough, of being too black (after all, he attended that black church in Chicago) and now of being elitist. As Bob Herbert so brilliantly put it in his New York Times article today, Obama's awkward explanation of why some voters in places like Pennsylvania don't vote for their economic interests and instead vote on the basis of wedge issues like religion and guns, was partly the result of his being unable or unwilling to speak the truth that some of these voters simply will not vote for a black candidate because blacks, in their minds, are inferior.

The real truth is even more distressing. Hillary Clinton, instead of using her considerable influence and power to ensure that the first black candidate in the history of the country is elected president, is doing everything she can to ensure that he isn't, and that includes using republican dog whistle tactics to get voters in her own party to vote against him. And she is doing this because all she cares about is winning.

She doesn't care about the will of the people. She doesn't care about the Democratic Party. She doesn't care about the country. And, in spite of the fact that she was once popular among African Americans, she doesn't care about race relations in this country.

I still think Obama can defeat her. And I still believe, in spite of her pitch to superdelegates, that Obama can defeat John McCain. He is one of the most skilled politicians we have seen in our lifetimes, and I think he can weather any storm the she-demon stirs up to destroy him. It won't be easy, but it can be done. And in spite of Hillary's belief that too many racist white voters will not vote for an African American, I have a little more faith than that in the American people. In spite of what may happen in Pennsylvania, there are enough Americans who have moved past the abhorrent politics of Karl Rove. There are enough Americans who are not racist. And there are enough Americans who are not threatened by the possibility of a black president.

Hillary Clinton is the one who is threatened by Obama, and if we can only defeat her, John McCain will be a piece of cake. He is an extremely flawed candidate, and I think a united Democratic Party can defeat him. Hillary's power madness, and need to overcome the humiliation she suffered during her husband's administration, is causing her to act like a desperate, unhinged rejected spouse, and she more than anyone can defeat obama's bid for the presidency.

It remains to be seen whether she will continue to encourage the racism that is smoldering under the surface so that she can defeat Obama, or if she will finally decide to be part of history by putting aside her irrational ambition and helping him win the presidency. If there is any decency under her blind ambition, her power madness, and her need to overcome the humiliation her husband dished up to her, she will ultimately do the right thing.

Otherwise, we can only conclude she has no decency. And that would make her a terrible president indeed.

Obama will win

As Hillary Clinton is hanging on to hope (but little else) in her bid for the democratic nomination, already pundits are looking at the electoral map for the general election. One thing that stands out is that an Obama candidacy would put more red and purple states in play, making an Obama victory potentially history making in terms of changing the electoral map. It appears that only Obama has the chance to reach out and win over independents and republicans, while Clinton could better count on a few states like Florida and Ohio that Dems lost in the last two elections.

Hillary's team is, of course, using this argument, that she could squeak out the two states that Gore and Kerry lost and thus win the election. She truly doesn't believe Obama can win, at least not by her formula, and thus she wants the party to play it safe and give her the nod.

But Obama's supporters want to go for broke, they want to take the "risk" of nominating him because they know how very big the pay off can be. Furthermore, they are willing to take the gamble because they see his impact on those who hear him, and they genuinely believe he can win over a large pool of voters, regardless of race, accusations of inexperience, and even the Rev. Wright.

Everywhere Obama competes (with the possible exception of Ohio, my birth state unfortunately) he has either won, or narrowed a huge Clinton lead to make the election close. As voters see him, hear him, and get to know him, they are captivated, and willing to take a chance. They see Obama as refreshing and new, optimistic and energetic, brilliant and confident, and after eight years of a president who is anything but brilliant, they are ready to take a chance.

I believe the Democratic Party will nominate Obama, and the voters will make him the next president, because there truly is something different in the air and the voters really are ready for a bigt change. In fact the voters are so tired of the problems created by this administration, that they are willing to take a gamble on someone young, fresh, and new, someone with a level of wisdom and quiet confidence far beyond his years.

Today, we see that 81% of the people say the country is going in the wrong direction. That is good for Obama, the only candidate who looks, sounds, and is different.

We see the Clintons engaging in the old style of politics and we increasingly know we cannot trust what they say.

As for McCain, we may admire his service to country, but service to country doesn't translate into ability to be president, especially when he is so tied to the party that took us in the wrong direction.

Hillary thinks the people want to play it safe and will vote for her, but she is wrong. She continually underestimates Obama, as do a lot of pundits who thought he might be finished after the Rev. Wright flap. But Obama continually surprises.

As voters get to know him, they begin to feel good about him. They begin to see how presidential he is, and they are willing to vote for him. He has narrowed the gap in Pennsylvania, where Hillary once had a twenty point lead, and he will narrow the gap in many states that John McCain is expected to win. He could even win some of them.

Change truly is in the air. The people are ready. Those with open minds and open hearts will listen and vote for change. Some, of course, will not vote for Obama because he is black or because he is young or because they are mad that Hillary wasn't chosen, or because they cannot imagine ever voting for a Democrat. But I believe there are enough Americans to overrule them.

I believe more than ever that this will be a historic election, and that forty years after the assassination of the greatest African American leader of our lifetime, the first African American will be elected president. And that will make me enormously proud of my country.

Hillary and the third stage of grief

One way to look at Hillary's refusal to concede to Obama, and her determination to fight on even though she has no real chance of getting the nomination, is through the prism of grief.

As Elizabeth Kubler-Ross taught us several decades ago, grief is a process that involves several stages, each of which can overlap with the others and occur in any order.

The stages include denial, anger, bargaining, sadness or depression, and finally resolution.

When this campaign season began, Hillary thought the nomination would easily be hers. Her strategy was to wrap things up by Super Tuesday (in early February) and glide to the convention in August as the queen-in-waiting. None of the candidates could pose a real threat to her, she thought. Then Obama's candidacy caught fire, and he won 11 contests in a row, soaring to a lead of 150 delegates. Since then, she has been unable to narrow that gap, even with wins in Texas and Ohio.

Although the final act has not been played, and we do not know for sure that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton has in front of her a stark reality: Obama is favored to win. So her long held dream of being the first woman president is dying. Hence, the grief analogy.

At first, Hillary was in denial. There was no way this upstart could defeat her. Her loss in the first caucus in Iowa was merely a blip, a mistake, erased by her victory in New Hampshire. Then she won Nevada and all seemed on track, until South Carolina showed her that she was losing the African American vote. This would be disastrous for her, so while on the outside she and her husband continued to deny reality, underneath there was anger. This was most obvious in Bill Clinton's behavior: yelling at reporters and making subtle racist comments: calling Obama's record on the Iraq War "a fairy tale" and comparing his win to that of Jesse Jackson.

While Hillary, Bill and their supporters are still in some denial, and still allow their anger to break through from time to time, they have entered the third stage of grief: bargaining. Thus we hear all kinds of scenarios by which they expect to win: the superdelegates must deny Obama the nomination because he is too flawed or because she won the big states, the blue states, or the most populous states; Florida and Michigan must have their votes counted even though they violated the rules which would disallow those votes; pledged delegates must follow their own conscience and not the will of the people who sent them to the convention. Now, some of Hillary's big donors have sent a threatening letter to Nancy Pelosi, demanding that she tell superdelegates to vote their conscience or they will take their ball and bat and go home. This is bargaining at its most brutal, and it is all because at some unconscious level, Hillary and her supporters know the truth: her campaign is dying, her dreams are dying, her hopes are dying.

Bargaining is all they have left. Denial no longer works and anger is counterproductive. Bargaining is all that keeps them from falling into the abyss of sadness and depression. So in that respect it makes a certain kind of sense, even though it is destructive.

I don't think it will be too long before Hillary and Co. will have to give up the bargaining and accept the inevitable sadness and grief that follows. It will be tough to take, tough to endure, and tough to go on when the dream dies. But the one good thing about grief is that over time there is resolution. The person who must grieve learns to live with the pain, and even create something new and positive from it. Look at Jimmy Carter's amazing humanitarian work, begun only after he lost a bid for his second term.

Hillary can do enormous good once she allows herself to experience the pain of her loss, once she acknowledges that she is not the only person in this country who could be a great president. Once she accepts that Obama is going to be the nominee, once she allows herself to see how great he could be with enough support and help from people like her and her husband, she will be at peace.

Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman and can continue on as a great senator or even governor if that is what she chooses. She can join her husband in his philanthropic work, start a think tank or even accept a cabinet position in an Obama administration. Letting go is painful, difficult, maybe even excruciating, but once one is courageous and gracious enough to do it, and to not go down a road of bitterness, much good can come of it.

Hillary can postpone the fourth stage of grief for a long time, but doing so will hurt the party and the eventual nominee. It will also hurt her. It's time for her to face the inevitable, allow herself some time to heal and throw her support behind an amazing candidate. Only then will she achieve true resolution and true statesmanship. She still has a tremendous role to play in electing our next president and contributing to our country, but first she has to move past the bargaining stage so she can finish the work of grieving.

She must be stopped

Hillary Clinton's strategy of "throwing everything but the kitchen sink" at Barack Obama in order to wound him, slow his momentum and convince superdelegates she is more electable was starting to have some effect, especially once the Rev. Wright flap erupted (with some secret help from the Clinton campaign perhaps?), but I suspect it will ultimately not work. There are some indications that the speech given by Obama slowed the bleeding, and now I am hearing and reading commentary that calls for us to chill, stop playing gotcha politics with Obama, and speak like grown-ups about race. I will cite some of that commentary in a later post. In this post I wish to speak personally about why I am so disappointed in and even disgusted by Hillary Clinton.

When the Clintons were under attack from the right wing and the media, before the 1992 election when the allegations of infidelity threatened to doom his candidacy, and again during the Monica scandal and the impeachment, a lot of us felt the Clintons were being treated unfairly and we defended them. I personally stood up to my family and my in-laws who were opposed to Clinton's political agenda and scandalized by his moral failings. I condemned the right wing witch hunts against the Clintons, as did so many other Democrats. In spite of what I knew were their failings, I supported the Clintons, thought impeachment was not justified, and condemned those who were obviously and unfairly out to get them.

Now the Clintons are doing to Barack Obama exactly what was done to them. In the wake of the recent Rev. Wright media blitz, Hillary Clinton has been wooing superdelegates, trying to convince them Barack is unelectable because of it. Instead of standing up for him, as so many stood up for the Clintons when they were being attacked, she is doing the attacking. And she is doing it because all she cares about is winning and gaining power.

Many of us stood up for Bill Clinton when others were attacking him. Even when we found out he had betrayed all of us with his lies, we still stood up for him because we felt he had been treated unfairly. We stood up for Hillary, when people were accusing her of being a lesbian, of causing Bill to cheat on her, and later of staying with him for purely political reasons.

Now, when people are unfairly attacking her opponent in her own party, rather than having the grace and dignity to condemn it, she piles on and tries to take advantage of it.

That is why I condemn Hillary Clinton, while I will never again defend or support her, and why I will not vote for her if she is the nominee. I defended her husband even after he betrayed his supporters with his lies about his behavior. I will not defend her when she adopts the tactics that were used against her and her husband, and attacks a member of her own party so obviously, so callously and so unfairly. As far as I can tell, everything Hillary Clinton has ever done, from her work in the Rose Law Firm, to working for specific liberal policies, to staying with a philandering husband, to voting for the Iraq War, has been done for one reason only: to someday win the White House.

Barack Obama got in the way of her life's ambition and she will apparently stop at nothing - not even fomenting racism - to shove him out of the way. For that reason, she must be stopped.

Real change or politics as usual?

Some people are saying that Barack Obama is finished, that between Hillary Clinton's glee over the issue, Republican hammering away, and blue collar male racism that has been ignited, he is dropping in the polls and should just drop out.

The New York Times today points out Hillary's current strategy to steal the nomination from Obama depends on three things: a continuation of the Wright flap to convince the superdelegates to reject Obama; a decisive win in Pennsylvania; and a lead in the popular vote by June (which would be helped by new primary elections or the seating of the delegates in Michigan and Florida).

Her strategy, of course, ever since the failure of her early strategy to blow everyone out of the race by February, has been to pull the rug out from under the frontrunner Obama by some fancy political footwork. She now has a big assist from the Wright matter, and the latent racism that it has unleashed among white working class democrats and some independents.

Hillary's strategy, of course, is old style politics, brutal, divisive and ugly, and not representative of the kind of change we Obama supporters have seen in our candidate. And if blacks think Hillary's silence as one of her fellow Senators and democrats is being trashed in an unfair and racially motivated way means she is their friend with respect to issues of race, they are mistaken. Hillary Clinton will capitalize on the racial divide brought about by the Wright incident and use it to her advantage, regardless of what it does to race relations in this country.

Hillary Clinton has a chance here to help her party and her country in a way that transcends anything she could do as president. She has a chance to show she really does believe in change, not just change in policies, but change in the way we do politics.

She could drop out of the race, throw her total support to Barack Obama, give her own speech on race, and shame the Republicans, the media, and the rest of the country that is hoping for racial divisions to rescue a Republican Party that was otherwise doomed in 2008.

She could do this, if she really believed in change, if she really believed in healing the racial divide. But she won't do it.

Hillary Clinton does not want to help her party and her country. Hillary Clinton does not want to heal the racial dividel. Hillary Clinton wants only to help herself. And if that isn't politics as usual, then nothing is.

Will they kill hope again?

For a few weeks I thought maybe I was wrong.

For a few weeks I thought my original belief that Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate - and would be assured the nomination because of their support - was going to be disproven by the power of the popular movement surrounding Barack Obama.

For a few weeks I thought maybe hope would win, maybe the people would prevail, maybe we were heading to an epic change in America that would signal a real return to democracy.

For a few weeks I contemplated that this might actually be a tranformational election, one in which the country would finally be baptized in the waters of civil rights and inclusiveness and equality and at last atone for the original sins of slavery and inequality that have so infected this country until this very day.

For a few weeks I rejoiced that the ugly politics of Bush-Clinton, of Rove and Attwater, of Hannity and Limbaugh, might finally be over and the people would not be fooled again.

For a few weeks I imagined a country united by a Christian, half black, half white, young and brilliant orator who preached hope and unity and change.

For a few weeks I held what now seems to be a delusional hope.

Prior to Barack Obama's entrance into the race I held the cynical view that the establishment (corporations and the political elite) choose the nominees of each party. It isn't hard to see how they do it – they provide the money, manipulate the news, determine the story lines, and focus on what takes down one candidate and what elevates another.

They did it in 2000 – focusing on stupid and false story lines like the one about Gore insisting he "invented the internet" and ignoring the stories that might have taken down Bush – like his avoidance of military service, his arrests, his total ignorance of domestic and foreign policy, and his mythical religious conversion. Then they failed to report that the "ordinary citizens" demanding a stop of the recount in Florida were actually Bush staffers sent in to create a false outrage. When long after the Supreme Court unconstitutionally anointed Bush president, they buried on the back pages of newspapers the reality that a recount would have given the state and the presidency to Gore.

They did it in 2004 – broadcasting the Swift Boat lies as if they were truth, allowing the false stories surrounding Kerry's military service in Vietnam to grow like a cancer until no treatment could make them go away. They did not look into the multiple false red terror alerts that happened almost weekly prior to the election, and magically disappeared once the vote was held. They then ignored the stories of the manipulation of the vote in Ohio which once again gave the presidency to the worst candidate in the history of the country.

And now they have chosen their favored candidates: McCain and Clinton. The press loves McCain and boosted him into the nomination with their favorable, hero-worshipping coverage. And while the press really doesn't like Clinton, their bosses do, and so the ugly racist stories about Obama are now coming forward.

So the airways and the blogosphere are full of stories about Obama's pastor, stories that indicate he is a black separatist, an angry black man, a man who does not love his country. The earlier stories, the ones about Obama being a Muslim, couldn't stop him, so now the story has changed. Obama is no longer rumored to be a Muslim, now he is said to embrace a view of America that is hateful and critical and unpatriotic. He may be a Christian, but he is a black Christian, a Christian whose views threaten white Christians, making him a dangerous black man.

Never mind that what Obama's pastor said is literally true, that Hillary Clinton, for instance, doesn't know what it is to be a black man, and that 9/11 happened because of the violent foreign policy American has perpetrated on the world. He said politically incorrect things you are not allowed to say if you are connected in any way to a presidential candidate.

Well, that's not actually true. You are allowed to say politically incorrect things if you are connected to a favored Republican political candidate. McCain's minister supporters are allowed to say 9/11 was God's punishment for abortionists, gays, lesbians, feminists, and the ACLU. They are allowed to say Katrina was God's punishment because of the gay pride parades and the gay lifestyle in New Orleans. They are allowed to say that the Catholic Church is "The Great Whore."

McCain is allowed to publicly and enthusiastically accept the endorsements of men whose views are outrageous, while Obama must be attacked and shamed because he has connections ranging from none (with Farrakhan) to close (with Wright) with men who have also expressed unacceptable views. What's the difference? There can only be two answers: that Obama is black, and that Obama is not the establishment candidate.

Obama is not the "dangerous black man" that some of Clinton's commercials and viral emails imply. He has no criminal past, though one Clinton staffer said people will wonder if he has ever "dealt drugs." He does not fit any of the racist stereotypes of blacks created by bigots and white supremacists. He does not even appeal to race to secure votes. In fact, Obama's campaign has consistently transcended race.

But Obama is dangerous for another reason. He is a different kind of politician. He doesn't play games with lobbyists and with the rich. He goes directly to the people and the people are responding. He wants them to join him in changing the nation and renewing its promise. With that message, he has simply won too many contests and has to be stopped. The corporations and the powerful in the country cannot afford to let an entire generation actually believe they have any say in who will be president. They must squash hope once again, as they did when they made sure Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy could not be allowed to succeed.

We will see what comes of all of this trashing of Obama. The media and the power brokers are doing their best to destroy him. So far he has maintained his cool and seems to be continuing his transcendence of it all. But voters are gullible, and dishonest and vicious appeals to racism and fear may work with enough people to destroy Obama.

If they do they will also destroy the hopes of a generation, as the assassinations in the sixties destroyed the hopes of my generation.

Hope is a fragile thing, easily dislodged. If Obama can continue to inspire his followers to hope, in spite of these ridiculous and vicious attacks, if he can prove himself to withstand the last vestiges of the original sin of this country as well as the awesome ability of the corporations to control our elections, he will truly transform this country.

We are at an epic turning point – will we go back to the old and the vicious and the ugly or will we courageously move ahead and renew this country, destroying that which divides us and turns us against each other? If Obama can lead us to do that, he will be a transformational figure, the likes of which we have not seen since FDR.

But I fear the powerful elites will not stand for it.

Here comes McClinton

Now that Barack Obama has won 10 primaries in a row, Hillary Clinton, the underdog in the Democratic race, and John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, are both going after him. They have become a two-headed attack dog we might call "McClinton." Here's what that attack dog is saying:

Who is this guy, really?

Words may be inspiring, but a president must have solutions; Obama is all words.

He's a newcomer and a "roll of the dice." He has no proven track record. We do.

We're the voice of experience, of Washington know-how, of stature.

He talks about "hope," we talk about reality.

McClinton wants Hillary to be the Democratic nominee: the Hillary head wants to be the nominee so she can be president; the McCain head wants Hillary, with her high negatives, to be the nominee so he can be president.

The McClinton strategy will not work. Each one of the attacks can easily be countered by Obama.

The "who is this guy?" strategy can easily be countered with a campaign commercial and a series of talking points highlighting all of his accomplishments as a community organizer, attorney and professor, Illinois State Senator, and Senator in Washington. His past and current colleagues can each point to one or more of his accomplishments and show how competent he is.

The accusation that he is "all words" and has no "proven track record" can be demolished with commercials and speeches that pair his inspirational words with both accomplishments and policy plans.

The "newcomer" vs. "experience" and "Washington know how" accusation won't fly as voters in presidential elections prefer candidates with less Washington experience, especially when that experience is intimately connected to lobbyists and gridlock. And let's face it, no matter how much experience you have as a Senator or Washington insider or as a First Lady or war hero, nothing can prepare you adequately for the job of the presidency. The most important characteristics you must have for the job are good judgment and grace under fire. Obama has both.

As for "hope" vs. "reality," Americans have had enough of reality in these past seven years. They both want and need "hope." And the interesting thing about Obama's message of hope isn't that he is asking Americans to hope HE can do something, but to both hope and get to work doing something with him. Unlike McClinton, he isn't saying "I have experience" and "I will bring solutions." He is asking the Americans to accept the difficulty of the task ahead and to join him in the hard work of changing the country for the better.

That is a message the American people cannot and will not resist no matter what McClinton says or does.

Voting with head and heart

All over the blogs you can read first hand accounts of people of all ages who go to Obama rallies and come away converted. It is his way with words, his message of hope, his energy that inspires them. Sometimes he talks specifics, but mostly he talks about hope and changing America.

His detractors and political cynics say this is no reason to vote for a presidential candidate. Hillary has more experience, they say, or McCain will be a better commander in chief. Obama may talk pretty, but that isn't good enough. A few years ago, I might have agreed with them. I am a highly pragmatic person who likes to think I vote more with my head than with my heart.

But this election is different. And that isn't to say Obama doesn't have well-thought out policies, or that he lacks experience. He has both good ideas and good experience. So does Hillary. But Obama, with his charisma, and his phenomenal ability to generate hope for the future, has so much more.

What Republicans and media pundits don't realize - and this is why Obamamania has surprised them - is that Democrats have been so depressed, so despondent, so angry, so hopeless since the late nineties, that they were ready for a message and a candidate like this.

At first, Hillary seemed like she would be a good general election candidate. She would bring to the race intelligence, experience, and memories of the prosperous nineties when her husband was president. And besides that, she would offer women a chance to vote for the first time for one of their own. And with the corruption and incompentence of this Republican administration, a Hillary presidency seemed inevitable.

But many Democrats weren't crazy about her, and some really disliked her. Some of that dislike is irrational, to be sure, but some of it is quite understandable. Others simply didn't want the Clintons back in the White House. They still remember defending them throughout the nineties when the Republicans were hunting them, only to have Bill finally let them down and pave the way for a Republican victory in 2000. Democrats have learned that, no matter how talented and capable, the Clintons are ultimately unpredictable when it comes to their personal lives. And that unpredictability has hurt us all.

So after years of fending off Republican attacks, being betrayed by President Clinton, and then enduring nearly eight years under the disastrous administration of an incompetent and dangerous Republican president, Democrats have been yearning for something more than a good policy wonk or a candidate of a different gender. Obama is offering something more, and the more Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans are getting to know Obama, and hearing his message, they are responding with an enthusiasm that has surprised many, but does not surprise me.

I have been one of those despondent Democrats. Obama brings me out of that dark place. Obama brings us all out of that dark place. This year, I will be proud to vote with both head and heart.

Transformative election or more of the same?

Two of my sons are caucusing in Wasington State today for the first time.

Like many young people, they have a real interest in this election.

Every so often, our democracy must renew itself by appealing to the younger generation, rallying them to care passionately about their country.

We haven't had such a renewal in a long time. For decades, it seems, the country has grown more cynical, and less interested in voting. For decades, the American people, young and old, have been less than enthusiastic about their parties' nominees for president and less confident that their vote matters.

The last generation of youth that really got fired up about politics was my generation: the baby boomers. They responded to the call of JFK to volunteer for their country, to Martin Luther King, Jr., to fight for racial justice, and to RFK to end the war and fight poverty. Leaders since then have either not inspired (Nixon, Carter, Bush I), disappointed (Clinton, Bush II) or appealed to older voters (Reagan).

This year, young people want to replace their parents and grandparents and become that new generation of activists, organizers, and voters who influence the direction of the country. And it is largely the result of one man: Barack Obama.

Obama is the new face of America: neither white nor black.

He is the new voice of America: for unity and cooperation, and against polarization.

He is the new message of America: of hope and possibility.

The youth of America hear him and see him and believe him and they are willing to work tirelessly to install him as their leader. They do not relate to Hillary Clinton. She is of their parents' generation, divisive and hyper-partisan. She represents the last century, not the new century. She does not inspire.

When Barack Obama said that while he believed Hillary Clinton's supporters would vote for him, he couldn't guarantee that his supporters would vote for her, he sounded arrogant and petty. The reality is that he was only reporting what he observed, that his youthful followers are supporting him not because they are loyal Democrats, but because they see in him something new and different, something refreshing, positive and hopeful. Most of all, they see in him someone who can transcend all that is wrong with the politics of today and they believe if they work hard enough, they can transcend it with him. They can take their miniscule amount of individual efforts, combine it with the efforts of millions of others, and beat a political machine like that of the Clintons. This is what inspires them and renews their hope in democracy.

If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, and especially if she wins because she succeeds in seating the Michigan and Florida delegates, when all candidates agreed not to seat them, or because the establishment super delegates give her the edge even though Barack wins the most state delegates, many of these young Barack supporters will be disillusioned. Many will no longer participate, not because of "sour grapes," but because they will no longer believe their voice matters. They will join the last several generations who are already cynical about the value of their vote.

This is a transformative election in more than one way. Should Barack Obama win the presidency it would transform this nation, by empowering and inspiring an entire generation of voters. But should he lose the nomination, especially in one of the scenarios mentioned above, an entire generation of Americans could become as cynical as their parents, and American democracy would fail to achieve the renewal that it so desperately needs.

Real feminists think for themselves

Throughout our lives, we form opinions on a multiplicity of issues. At first, it is typical for our views to reflect those of our parents. Over time, as we are exposed to other views, and reflect on our own life experiences, our views evolve.

For example, we hear our parents' political views throughout our childhood and adolescence, and agree with them until we go off to live on our own, and either hear other views or just begin to experience life differently. Sometimes we adopt new views permanently, or sometimes just try them on temporarily before returning to our parents' views. Other times we may reject both and develop our own unique perspective.

The important thing is that at some point in our adult lives we live according to what we truly believe, neither because our parents believe it, nor because we still feel the need to rebel against them by adopting a contrary belief.

My husband and I grew up in ultra conservative families. Up until our early twenties, we were, like our families, conservative in our political, religious and cultural views. We went to church each Sunday and accepted all the dogmas of our church. We were conservative Republicans and couldn't understand why anyone could be a Democrat. We didn't oppose the war in Vietnam, even as protests surrounded us on our college campus. We thought a woman's place was in the home, not in the office.

While our fellow students didn't really change us, having adult experiences and learning to think for ourselves did. The first break with my parents' political views came in 1968, after the deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, when for the first time I really paid attention to the idealism and the fight against injustice represented by these two men. I turned 21 that year and it was the first time I could vote. Had RFK not been assassinated, I would have enthusiastically voted for him, much to my father's dismay. Instead I voted for Hubert Humphrey, only to see him lose to the first man to ever have to resign the presidency. I was still a registered Republican, not yet ready to sever my loyalty to my family, but eventually that changed too.

As we moved into the seventies and feminism arrived in full force, I was open to what people like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan had to say. Even as people in my family and church disparaged "women's libbers" as crazy people, I understood what Friedan was saying about "the problem that has no name." I had that problem. I had a college degree and was raising three children and I thought I would go out of my mind. Motherhood wasn't my strong suit and I felt my brain cells were dying with every diaper I changed.

Though I no longer call myself a feminist (mainly because I believe we are in a different phase now, a post-feminist phase in which we must go beyond agitation to collaboration) I have remained an advocate of women's rights and am always somewhat sad when I encounter women who criticize the women's movement and use derogatory and demeaning terms like "women's libbers." I always ask them if they don't believe women are equal to men or shouldn't have the same rights as men. I remind them that they would not have the opportunities they have and their fantastic paychecks if the women's movement had never happened.

Sure, there have always been aspects of the women's movement I have had a hard time with. While I don't believe abortion should be criminalized, for instance, I simply can't approve of the radical pro-choice stance some women's groups take. As a mother of four children, I think abortion is always a tragedy, and I don't like the way some political groups treat it as if it just another form of birth control. I know this makes me out of line with other feminists, but remember what I said about the importance of developing your own views.

In general, though, I believe the goals of feminism have been admirable ones, and ones that have brought freedom and opportunities to women. The work is not finished, of course, and won't be until discrimination ends and equal pay is given for equal work, but once in a while I am ashamed of what some feminists do and yesterday was one of those days.

Yesterday, I read the statement by Marcia Pappas, the president of the New York chapter of NOW, slamming Ted Kennedy for his endorsement of Barack Obama and accusing him of "the ultimate betrayal." As I read the statement, it became clear that she felt Ted Kennedy owed women an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, and that anything short of that was unacceptable. She accused him of "abandonment," of "choosing the new guy over us." She sounded like a woman scorned, someone whose husband or lover just cheated on her. She also said that by supporting Obama, Kennedy was completely abandoning women's issues and that furthermore, he couldn't handle the idea of a woman president.

In other words, the only way Kennedy could have proven his dedication to women's issues was to have endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Everything else he has done for women in all his years in the Senate simply doesn't count.

Whoa! This is the kind of woman that gives feminism a bad name. This woman is effectively saying: "We've waited long enough. We're tired of male presidents and now that we have found a strong woman, we demand that you support her. We don't care if she loses in the general election, or that she is riding her husband's coat tails, or that she supported the war, or that she is a terribly divisive figure, we demand that you support her or everything you have done up until now is a sham." (Boy will she be in for a surprise if and when Hillary Clinton becomes president and doesn't give in to all her demands.)

I thought feminism was about men and women being equal, not about demanding that a woman be given a free pass. I thought feminists would want a woman who got to the presidential nomination on her own merits, not because she is married to a former president, is at least partly running on his record, and sends him out in the campaign to be her hit man. I thought we had gotten past hating men, and blaming them for everything that has ever gone wrong in the lives of women.

There was a time for anger in the seventies. A lot of us were angry then because we were realizing that the unhappiness many of us felt was because we were stuck in the restrictive roles society set down for us. We woke up to the injustice and did something. We demanded entrance into colleges and occupations that banned us. We demanded better pay, and child care so we could go to work. We got elected to office. We educated our husbands and depending on their reactions, either divorced them or joined with them in moving our marriages to a different and more fulfilling place. And most of us got over our anger and started to like men again. We decided that it was better to work together and to appreciate our differences, not just insist we be treated exactly the same.

Sure, there are still some "sexist pigs," (as we used to call them) out there, but Ted Kennedy isn't one of them, and for Marcia Pappas to attack him when he made a decision that he is entitled to make, and that he sincerely believes is the best decision for women as well as men, not to mention the country, is just stupid.

Her letter wasn't the statement of a disappointed or frustrated woman who is passionately supporting her candidate. It was the cry of a deranged women, whose hatred of men simmers continually below the surface.

Feminism is not and should never be about hating men. Nor should it be about electing a female president regardless of who the female nominee is.

I have considered myself a supporter of woman's rights for many years, far more years than Marcia Pappas I suspect, but I am also a woman who thinks for herself, and doesn't live in a binary world of good and evil, black and white, and male and female. Ted Kennedy supports Barack Obama, as many of us do, precisely because Obama is a candidate who transcends such a binary world.

In my twenties, when I identified strongly with feminists and believed in the causes they fought for, I might have supported a candidate like Hillary Clinton just because she was a woman. As I was awakening to the discrimination against women, I went through my own phase of anger against the male establishment and thought we needed to do bold things and stand together. But times have changed and so have I. Now I believe our best hope is to have a fair contest between male and female candidates, with politicians and citizens, men and women, free to support whatever candidate best represents their views. I no longer believe a woman candidate deserves the support of all women and all liberal male politicians. To the contrary, I think that demeans the woman candidate.

I was glad to see the national organization distance itself from its New York chapter because I think the statement of Marcia Pappas disgraces us all.

She owes Ted Kennedy and all women an apology for her ridiculous outburst, which does nothing to help the cause of women.

Real feminists, male and female, make decisions based on more than gender.

THE CLINTON PATHOLOGY

The television pundits keep trying to convince us that overall Bill's presence on the campaign trail is helping Hillary. "He's still a beloved figure in the Democratic Party," some say. Others call him the "big dog" or the "head of the party." Even when they are commenting on his questionable behavior or his head-scratching comments, they seem to think he does more good than harm because of his charisma and charm and political skills.

I'm not so sure.

Hillary seemed to be doing fine as long as Bill was running around being a reformed politician, a do-gooder who traveled the globe handing out money. But the minute someone in Hillary's campaign decided they needed his help (about five minutes after it became apparent Hillary would lose Iowa, I suspect) the campaign was in big trouble. Why? Because Bill Clinton has an enormous amount of emotional baggage that can't stay hidden forever, especially once he feels threatened.

Continue reading on Outraged Citizen

Karl Rove is laughing

Democratic voters in recent days have been dismayed to see Hillary Clinton, and her defender husband, the former president, in petty and dishonest battles with their political rival, Barack Obama. Being so critical of the Rovian tactics of the past two elections, we wanted our nominating process to be civilized and uplifting.

At first, we were thrilled to see our diverse field of candidates, especially when you compared it to the typical Republican field of all white males. We thought the problem we would have, when it came our turn to choose, was that there were too many good choices. Almost all of the candidates, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich who was always really the conscience of the group rather than a serious contender, were saying the same things and so our task was difficult. How could we decide which of these great candidates we wanted as our standard bearer when all of them were so good?

We would have to consider things other than their policy positions, which were all pretty much the same. Did we want to go with a former first lady and elect the first woman? Or might electing an inspiring and charismatic African American be the way to go? Did we want to be the generation to elect the first black president? How about a Latino who had much foreign policy experience and knew how to conduct tough negotiations around the world, or a former vice presidential nominee who would finally do something to help the forgotten people in the country?

We thought our dilemma was the best of all dilemmas.

We were wrong.

Because once the field narrowed, and the battle was between two firsts – the first woman and the first African American – it got emotional and ugly. And part of the reason it got ugly was that there was so much at stake, part was because the Clintons felt the nomination by all rights belonged to Hillary and should be easy to secure, and part it was because the specters of racism and misogyny were right below the surface, causing the candidates and their staffs, as well as the media and voters, to overreact and cater to their worst instincts.

Some may think these "overreactions" were deliberate, designed to turn voters against the other candidate, and perhaps they were. Campaigns have become highly calculated and staged psychological events, with advisors who know how to manipulate the emotions of the electorate so that we never really know what we need to know about whom we are electing. It could be said that Bush's entire 2000 campaign was an exercise in deception, with Bush pledging to be a humble, compassionate conservative who would be a "uniter." These, of course, were all words tested in focus groups and had no relation to the actual candidate Bush. It was the campaign tactics, not the candidate, that came out victorious in the 2000 election, and look what we got: eight years of hell.

The unfortuante reality is that the people are easily fooled by candidates who mislead them and appeal to some of their worst instincts. In this sense, a campaign is like a nationwide Rorschach test. The voters see what they want to see, only in this case it is also what the campaign carefully leads them to see. In recent days, the Clinton campaign has capitalized on two issues they knew would resonate with African American voters. Hillary inserted the words "slum lord" into the debate, and made sure she connected them to Obama, whose defense would take much more time than a debate or 30 second commercial could provide. She also took advantage of Obama's unfortunate reference to Ronald Reagan, who is hated in the African American community, and said that Obama praised his ideas (which he didn’t). Again, how does one explain that in 30 seconds? And once the lie is out there, it's impossible to take it back. As Winston Churchill once said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Churchill did not know it, of course, but he was actually summing up current American campaign strategy.

For seven long years, we Democrats have been waiting for an opportunity to finally take back the White House. With George W. Bush's unpopularity, this seemed the year. Having the 2000 election stolen was devastating, because it led to a terrible and unnecessary war and tax cuts that have bankrupted the treasury. Losing in 2004 was damaging in other ways. Not only did the war continue, but the Supreme Court got two new ultraconservative members who are busy undoing many progressive reforms and laws. Losing in 2008 would be unthinkable. The Supreme Court could be lost for decades, war would continue indefinitely, poverty will deepen and more Americans will lose health insurance, and the corporate takeover of this country, with the further destruction of the middle class, might very well be completed.

Yet the candidates bicker and play games with the voters because, while they may have good ideas and may all make acceptable presidents, what they want most is to win. I am disgusted with them, of course, and with their tactics. I am mostly disgusted with the Clintons, because I think they are the ones who are the most manipulative and the most dishonest. I also don't think a former president should be out there attacking reporters as well as his wife's opponent, getting red in the face, and defending his wife, especially when he treated her so abysmally in a very public way eight years ago, and even more so because she should be showing us she is strong enough to do this on her own.

But I also blame the voters. Candidates continue attacking each other in dishonest and personal ways because they know it works with voters who are far less attentive to all the facts, and far more gullible than they should be, or perhaps, like the Rorschach test, they see what they want to see. For example, in a story on CNN yesterday, a voter in South Carolina said everyone she talks to brings up the "fact" that "Obama is a Muslim." Now anyone who has paid a modicum of attention to his campaign or the news knows that this is untrue, that Obama is in fact a Christian whose membership in a Chicago church is controversial because its minister has praised Louis Farrakhan. This story has been out for quite some time, yet there are still a large number of people who believe an internet smear that says Obama is a Muslim. Why do they believe it?

One answer, of course, is that they retain racist attitudes, but cannot express that in public, as it is not considered acceptable. So they latch onto something negative they hear about the black candidate and use that to reject him. It is still okay in this country to reject Muslims, so they believe that falsehood about Obama. And his having a Muslim sounding last name that rhymes with "Osama," and a middle name that is the same as that of the deceased Iraqi dictator, makes the smear easy to apply.

How sad that we live in a country where people can be fooled by candidates and opponents of candidates because they hear what they want to hear. How tragic that Obama's main opponent, a distinguished and capable woman, a woman who has always fought for civil rights for minorities, and whose white husband was once dubbed "the first black president," would attack the man who could REALLY become the first black president because she so desperately wants to be the first woman president. How sad that what once made me and so many Democrats proud to be a member of the Democratic Party now has us feeling helpless to stop the internal bickering of two highly qualified candidates who could each make history this November, but instead may send voters running to the party that has spent the last eight years running the country off a cliff.

Karl Rove couldn't have planned it any better.

Barack's two front war

I've been checking out the liberal blogs this morning and am not finding much consensus on the effect of last night's Democratic debate. It's almost as if everyone is so shocked by what they saw on television that they are paralyzed and can't decide what the out-in-the-open hostility between Clinton and Obama means. I'm not sure I do either, but here are some thoughts.

My initial reaction was to cringe as they began going after each other. It brought back memories of the twenty-five years of marriage counseling I did, and the frustration I would feel each time husband and wife did a tit for tat with each other. No one ever wins in such encounters and I don't think anyone won last night either.

I found myself wanting to put words in Barack Obama's mouth. I wanted him to say after about the third attack from Hillary: "You know, we may have differences with each other, and we may be engaged in a highly competitive contest for the most important job in the world, but the reality is we are much more similar in our policies than we are different. We can all be proud of the fact that regardless of what we believed in 2003, today we all condemn the war in Iraq. None of the Republican front runners can say that. We can all be proud of the fact that we are discussing health care reform, and ending poverty, and continuing the fight for equality, when Republicans don't even discuss these issues with any seriousness. Yes, sometimes in the heat of the contest we lash out at each other, and I wish that didn't have to be. But the truth is that any one of us would be a far better president than any of our opponents. And I don't want our differences on this stage to mask that fact."

He didn't say that, although Hillary said something sort of close to that a little later in the debate, not because she was being generous but because I think she realized she was beginning to sound like a shrew. That's the danger for Hillary. In trying to look strong and unflappable, she runs the risk of appearing shrewish. The danger for Barack is that he might alienate democrats who are still loyal devotees of Bill and Hillary.

I think the most significant thing Barack said last night in terms of the dynamics of the contest is that sometimes he doesn't know whether he is running against Bill or Hillary. I think that's true. I don't think the country really knows who they are voting for. Would Hillary really be the president, or would Bill have a third term? If she becomes president, at least in name, would he be at cabinet meetings? If she is attacked in the press, will we see Bill always jumping in to rescue her?

I would love to see a woman president because I think a woman could run this country. I'm not so sure, though, that Hillary is the one I want to see.

And here's the problem America faces now. When Bill Clinton was elected president, the people were voting for intelligence and competence. There was real concern that George H.W. Bush was incompetent, at least when it came to managing the economy. Bill Clinton was a policy wonk, and charismatic to boot. He both instilled confidence and inspired. The electorate was aware of his playboy reputation, but ignored it and opted for a competent leader who made them feel good. Then, Bill Clinton let the country down. His playboy side emerged and he demoralized enough people that they voted in the next election for an incompetent, alcoholic, failed businessman who seemed harmless. (Yes, I know Al Gore really won the popular vote, but the election shouldn't have been close. Had Clinton not screwed up, he could have helped Gore campaign and it would have been no contest. At least the election would never have ended up in the Supreme Court where it was stolen.)

So now the electorate knows it can't go with incompetence. The country is in such terrible shape on so many fronts today because they chose the worst president in history, that it wants to go with competence. However, in this election, the Democrats are trying to decide between what they see as competence but no inspiration, and inspiration but uncertain competence. Hillary is surely competent, but lacks any kind of charisma and ability to inspire. Barack is all about inspiration, but lacking her years of experience, leaves some wondering if he has the same level of competence.

So as people begin to believe Barack is competent, Hillary has to do two things. She has to rely on Bill's charisma and popularity to counterbalance her stiff schoolmarm personality, and she has to attack Barack's competence. Barack, on the other hand, has to fight a war on these two fronts. He has to compete directly with Bill on the charisma issue, and he has to defend himself against the Clinton attack on his competence.

I think he did a fairly good job last night, though it was uncomforable to watch. I don't think anyone knows how this will all shake out, but I will add one personal note. Watching the debate last night did not endear me to Hillary. Since I am a long time admirer of the Clintons, I can only imagine how it looked to those who dislike the Clintons.

But people see what they want to see. And the Clintons will probably pull off a victory for the nomination. I don't think that's good for the democrats or the country, because I fear it will propel McCain right into the White House, and as I said here, that would be a disaster.

Now I'm going to go watch CNN and see how much I'm losing in my 401K.

A John McCain presidency

I found myself saying something unthinkable to my 81 year old Republican father yesterday. I told him I didn't think it would be a catastrophe if John McCain were elected. To be honest, I said this in the spirit of family harmony. My father and I have a long history of arguing about politics, and since he is now disabled, I don't want to get him all riled up.

But even as I was saying it, I realized I didn't really mean it. A John McCain presidency would be a disaster. Sure, it wouldn't be as bad as a Rudy Giuliani presidency, which might get us embroiled in World War III while destroying the domestic economy, or a Mitt Romney presidency, which would complete the corporate takeover of this country, or a (heaven forbid!) Mike Huckabee presidency which would take "faith-based" to a new and frightening level.

John McCain might stop torture as official U.S. policy and address the issue of climate change in some fashion. Nonetheless, in so many other areas, a McCain presidency would do terrible things to us as a country including:

*Keeping our troops and treasure bound up in Iraq indefinitely.

*Continuing the health care crisis by instituting only "market-based" and "tax- based" reforms, which would do nothing to help those who can least afford health care.

*Continuing the current tax cuts, which put a much higher tax burden on the middle and working classes, continue to grow the deficit, widen the divide between rich and poor, and mortgage our children's future.

*Appointing radical right wing judges to the Supreme Court who would abandon the longstanding respect for issues of privacy, favor corporate rights over individual rights, and continue the effort to give the president increasingly more power than the Congress.

A John McCain presidency, simply by continuing Republican ownership of the White House, would be good news for corporations and bad news for individuals, good for the wealthy and bad for the poor, good for oil companies and bad for the planet, good for CEO's and bad for hourly wage workers, and as much as he may want to fight the "war on terror," a John McCain presidency would be good for al Qaeda and war profiteers and bad for the United States and those of us who want peace.

Conservative economic policies, which McCain would continue, have been a disaster for all but the wealthiest of Americans. While promising much, they have delivered little for the man on the street. Continuing them for four more years would be worse than foolish on the part of the American voters. And the Bush foreign policy, which McCain would also continue, would not make America safer and would ultimately deplete our treasury.

The "empathy deficit" that Barack Obama talks about would continue. America would continue to be hated around the world, and instead of repairing the damage that Reagan-Bush conservatism has done to the country and the world, we would have to wait four more years to begin the healing, all the while holding our breath and hoping we will be able to survive four more years.

A tale of two parties

In just a few short weeks we may know who the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees are – or not.

This is a strange election year. There is no clear front runner in either party, as the voters in each party are divided.

However, what divides the voters in the Democratic Party is very different from what divides the voters in the Republican Party.

Read entire article at Outraged Citizen.