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.

Three speeches

Last night, when history was made, three politicians gave speeches.

John McCain started out the evening in front of a hideous green backdrop, having stolen part of Obama's campaign slogan, and gave a dreadful speech in which he attacked Obama with a chorus of "That's not change we can believe in." As he finished each sentence, which he delivered quite seriously, he gave that silly artificial smile. The message, the delivery, the appearance of McCain, even the reaction of the crowd, was not befitting a presidential candidate. Additionally, it was foolish of McCain not only to try to steal Obama's moment from him, but to be willing to pair his speech with Obama's, and have it be compared unfavorably. From here on in McCain needs to realize that no one can match Obama's gift of oratory.

Hillary Clinton was up next, having ramped up expectations of what she might say by sending out little hints all day that she would, then she wouldn't concede, that she wanted or didn't want the vice presidential nod. Her speech was in the basement of a university, where cell phones and other wireless devices could not work. Apparently she held her listeners hostage inside the room, kept in ignorance that Obama had won the nomination, so she could pretend it hadn't happened yet. When she finally gave her speech, she did not acknowledge his victory, only his good campaign, and spent the time trying to tell her supporters what she wanted. The speech was all about her, all about her supporters, with the constant (untrue) reminder that more people had voted for her than for her opponent. By all accounts, except those of her staff, it was a poor loser speech, a speech in which she seemed to be saying to Obama: "not so fast buddy, you still have to deal with me." In my estimation, the speech was one more way of the Clintons saying "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is." It all depends on what the meaning of sniper fire is, it all depends on what the meaning of the popular vote count is, it all depends on what the meaning of victory is. One wonders if Hillary will ever concede.

Then, speaking last, was the Democrat's new presumptive nominee. His speech was generous to Hillary, gracious to her and her supporters, and tough on his Republican rival. The tone varied from humble, to matter-of-fact, to fiery. In stark contrast to McCain, whose delivery of a speech ranges from reading lines to looking up and smiling, Obama knows how to vary his style, to make his speeches interesting, to move from facts to emotion and back again. Obama's speech inspired me and made me proud.

There were three speeches last night, each with its own goal.

McCain's goal was to upstage Obama. He failed miserably.

Clinton's was to deny Obama her concession, taint his victory, and warn Obama that he would still have to contend with her. In future days, it will be obvious that her strategy backfired.

Obama's was to claim the nomination, be gracious to Hillary, and set the tone for the general election contest. He succeeded on all counts.

The evolution of an Obama suporter

The evolution of an Obama supporter.

First of two essays on why I have decided to support Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

And it's not because I have drunk the "Kool-Aid" or am betraying my gender.

Electoral psychodrama

We can all overthink, overanalyze, and over-react to any one thing a candidate does or says on the campaign trail. But sometimes there is a pattern, a group of statements and behaviors that hint at what is really going on inside the psyche of a candidate.



I think Hillary has given away what is going on inside her psyche, and John McCain is following her lead.



Both candidates are really pissed that this way-too-young Senator is challenging them for the presidency when he has not, in their opinion, paid his dues. Add to this the fact that both Clinton and McCain have been waiting years for their chance to run. We all know what happened to McCain when he ran against another young upstart, George W. Bush, eight years ago. McCain was treated horribly by that campaign, and in order to be in the best possible position to run this year, he has had to grovel before Bush, campaign for him, and support him in spite of how he must have felt to be the victim of Rovian smears. So in 2008, McCain has paid more than his share of dues and finds himself competing against another young upstart, someone who has only been in the Senate a few years. This must seem completely unfair and wrong to him.

Clinton, on the other hand, watched as her husband, the President, was attacked and ultimately impeached. She was publicly humilated, both by her husband and his rivals who exposed all of his sexual misbehavior in graphic detail. So to get back her dignity, she first ran for the Senate in 2000, hoping to build up years of governing bona fides to qualify her to run for president. Then, just as everyone is declaring her the inevitable nominee, this charismatic kid, who has never had to endure what she has, who doesn't have her experience, but who has loads of charm and likability, comes forward and says "I think I want this job."



This week both Clinton and McCain made their feelings about Obama obvious. Clinton's statement about staying in the race, using the example of RFK winning in June in California and then being assassinated was her big give away. Why pick that example out of the many other nomination fights decided late? Probably because Obama and RFK have a lot in common. RFK was also young(43) and charismatic, and Obama has often been compared to RFK as well as his brother JFK. Kennedy had only been a Senator for four years, the same amount of time Obama has been in the Senate, and was seen as a challenger to the Democratic establishment in 1968, which ultimately backed establishment candidate Hubert Humphrey.



Clinton also saw herself as the establishment, the inevitable candidate, until she found herself challenged by the young Obama. What comes across in all of Clinton's encounters with Obama, and in her demeaning statements about him, is her belief that he does not deserve this nomination, that he has stepped on her toes and her chance at the presidency, and that he is not deserving of respect. That is why she made that snarky comment about she and McCain having a lifetime of experience and Barack having only a speech. That is why she seemed to discount the legacies of both Martin Luther King, Jr. and John F. Kennedy, both young leaders, both assassinated, when she talked about how much more important Lyndon Johnson was to getting civil rights legislation enacted.



It is clear Hillary identifies with party insiders like Humphrey and Johnson, and looks with puzzlement on young charismatic figures like King, the Kennedys, and now Obama. She sees their appeal but does not understand it and cannot compete with it. And her language of feint praise, or in Obama's case disrespect, gives her away.



McCain has a similar reaction to Obama. Obama obviously gets under his skin (in much the same way he gets under Bill Clinton's skin) when he says anything to challenge McCain. On the Senate floor this week, with McCain absent, Obama expressed praise for McCain's personal story, but disagreement with his decision not to support the veteran's bill. McCain shot back immediately with praise for fellow veteran Jim Webb, who sponsored the legislation he opposed, and over the top disdain for Obama:

I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

Whoa! He attacks Obama for not serving in the military, for not, so to speak, paying his dues. He shows his contempt for Obama in this and in other campaign stops, where he calls Obama "inexperienced" and "young man." His tone is dismissive and, like Clinton, his words tell the whole story. McCain believes he has earned the presidency, and no matter how popular or charismatic or intelligent or capable Obama is, he hasn't earned the right to challenge the Vietnam POW.



This year we are observing an interesting psychodrama. Two older establishement candidates struggle to compete against a younger candidate with his amazing gifts of charisma, speaking ability, high intelligence, creativity, and organization. Three other young leaders with those same gifts were all gunned down in the sixties and we haven't really had another emerge since then - until Obama. Interestingly, Obama is, as the first African American nominee, a combination of the Kennedys and King. His supporters all pray that he will not meet the same end, that he will be safe, and with a little luck and a lot of hard work make it to January 20th, 2009, when he will put his hand on the Bible and take the oath of office of the President of the United States of America.

And just as an aside, this explains why so many of us were so horrified by Clinton's remarks about RFK's assassination.

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.

Hillary's choice: cynical manipulation or a grand opportunity?

The Washington Post is out with a story today about the overt racism encountered by young Obama volunteers on the campaign trail.

I read the story and felt sick. I know - intellectually at least - there is still racism in this country, and I know the Republicans have been exploiting it in the South for decades. I wasn't prepared for it to show itself among Democrats.

Naively, I suppose, I thought the worst of racism was behind us. If the worst means slavery and lynching, then the worst hopefully is behind us. But in reading this article and hearing the things people are still willing to do and say to someone who is African American or is promoting an African American candidate, I have come to realize there is still terrible potential for racially motivated violence.

According to the article, doors are slammed in campaign workers' faces, Obama headquarters are vandalized and windows spray painted with racial slurs and references to the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim. A group of young black volunteers holding Obama signs on the side of the road in Kokomo, Indiana were greeted by angry motorists who yelled racial slurs at them. And this…

In a letter to the editor published in a local paper, Tunkhannock Borough Mayor Norm Ball explained his support of Hillary Clinton this way: "Barack Hussein Obama and all of his talk will do nothing for our country. There is so much that people don'tknow about his upbringing in the Muslim world. His stepfather was a radical Muslim and the ranting of his minister against the white America, you can't convince me that some of that didn't rub off on him. "No, I want a president that will salute our flag, and put their hand on the Bible when they take the oath of office."

Here are some other direct quotes from voters, as recounted by campaign volunteers.

I'll never vote for a black person.

Hang that darky from a tree.

White people look out for white people, and black people look out for black people.

He's a half-breed and he's a Muslim. How can you trust that?

How discouraging that, 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation and forty years after the death of Martin Luther King Jr., there would still be such ignorance, hatred and racism in this country. It's hard to believe, yet there it is.

Furthermore, I never thought I would see a Democratic candidate so willing to use racism to her advantage, and to fuel it with her rhetoric as well as her silence. (What she may not have considered, but ought to, is that some of these anti-Obama voters who say they support her may be only doing so because she is the white candidate. If Obama were white, many of her current male supporters would probably not vote for her because she is female. Racism and sexism go hand in hand, and while Obama is today's victim of discrimination, she could just as easily be tomorrow's.)

When Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama for staying in his church, she is not just questioning his judgment, she is reminding voters of his angry "black" pastor. When she speaks of her supporters being hard working white voters, she is sending a covert message to her supporters that the other guy is not one of them. When her husband dismisses Obama's win in South Carolina by saying "Jesse Jackson won here twice," he is really saying "Well the other black guy won here too, so it's no big deal." When Hillary tells voters of West Virginia to "send them a message," she is channeling segregationist presidential candidate George Wallace, who said the same thing. And when she remains silent in the face of false rumors spread by her campaign and Obama's opponents about who he is and what he stands for, she is using racism to her benefit.

Hillary Clinton is not a racist, but she is an opportunist and an enabler. The spouse or friend who buys the booze for the alcoholic, makes excuses for him, and covertly gives him excuses to drink, is not an alcoholic, but he or she can do just as much damage in enabling the drinker to go on drinking. That is what Hillary did in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and now West Virginia.

So today, I am sending Hillary a message:

Hillary, you are enabling this racism. You are encouraging it. No amount of good intentions or desire to carry the dreams of American women to Washington can possibly excuse your complicity in this travesty. How would you feel if one of those young campaign workers was killed either intentionally or unintentionally as a result of the racism you have enabled, and even manipulated for your own benefit? And even if no one dies, how willing are you to look the other way when racial epithets are hurled, buildings vandalized and doors slammed in the faces of young people, people even younger than your daughter, just because of the color of your opponent's skin?

Is your victory worth this? Does this make you proud? Are you this ambitious, this cynical?

You are not going to win, and at this point your only reason for dishing out false hope to your supporters may be to continue to take in contributions so you can pay off your campaign debt. But is money more important than uniting the country, more important than using this grand opportunity when you are still on the national stage to help the country move beyond its tarnished history?

You could do something important to help people overcome their racism right now. You could stop with the coded language. You could set an example for them by embracing the candidacy of Barack Obama.

You could give a grand concession speech in which you address the issues of sexism and racism and beg your supporters not to fall for the rumors and innuendos about your opponent, and ask them to rise above the legacy of slavery and segregation and Jim Crow and join with all of their fellow Americans, of every race and creed, to vote for a man you know to be a good and decent American, someone more than qualified to be President of the United States.

You have a once in a lifetime opportunity now to help your fellow Americans overcome their fear and ignorance.

But to use the coded words of George Wallace to your supporters in West Virginia?

That is simply inexcusable.

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.

Molly Ivins on Hillary Clinton

Molly Ivins is one of my heroes. Before her premature death in January 2007, she wrote and spoke the truth every day of her life. Molly was a feminist, but she was no Hillary Clinton fan, because to Molly, there was something more important than electing a female president, and that was electing an honorable female president.

In January, 2006, one year before her death, Molly said this:

I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

Read the entire article. It's worth it.

Passing the torch

How long is the Democratic Party going to continue to pander to "Reagan Democrats?"

For the past few weeks, and continuing today after Hillary Clinton's disastrous loss in North Carolina and near loss in Indiana, the Clinton camp has been using the argument to super delegates that "Obama can't win the white working class vote."

So I want to say a few things about that type of thinking.

First, Obama won plenty of white working class votes. Hillary won more, but he did win some of them. He even won some Reagan Republicans and Reagan Independents.

Second, if we want to play a game of division, it could be said that Hillary can't win the African American vote. She lost it by a much larger margin than Obama lost the white working class vote. The Clintons maintain there are more white working class votes than black votes, and that may be true, but here is another reality:

Some of those white working class voters will definitely vote for Obama when he runs against McCain. When the choice was between two Democrats, many white working class voters chose Hillary over Obama. There are probably many possible reasons for that. One was the great snow job Hillary pulled by painting herself as a regular gal, and calling Obama an elitist. Another was probably racism, which appears to be higher in the working class than in the upper classes.

Those who voted for class reasons will vote for Obama in the Fall because McCain and the Republicans are not good for the working class and they finally know it. And as time goes by, and the people get to know Obama and his history better, the "elitist" label wil disappear.

Those who voted against Obama because of race will probably not be won over, but do we really want to choose Hillary as the nominee because we want to appeal to racists? Can't we use this election, instead, as a chance to help many Americans overcome racism? Bill and Hillary, who actually fueled racism with their primary strategy, could now be Obama's biggest allies in overcoming racism. If Bill and Hillary renounce racism, including that which reared its head in their campaign, they could do a great deal to help this country finally renounce the remnants of racism that remain in this country.

Third, with this election, we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the dominance of the white blue collar vote and the importance of Reagan Democrats to every election since, well, since Reagan. Soon Caucasians will be outnumbered in the electorate by Asians, African Americans, and Hispanics and those Reagan Democrats may simply not matter to electoral victory as much as they once did.

Barack Obama may not have won over a majority of Asians and Hispanics, but he is certainly capable of it. Most of those voters will choose Obama over McCain. And Obama definitely has over ninety percent of African Americans as his base. He also has the college educated voters, as Democrats usually do. The college educated voters have been frustrated for years that they could not get their message out to their fellow Americans about how Republicans and some Democrats have been screwing them over, manipulating their vote and making promises to them that they never keep. This election may finally change that.

And finally, what Obama has that Clinton didn't, and what will provide him a new metric for victory, is the youth vote, the vote of those who are members of the Post Boomer generations. And what is particularly hopeful, unique, and game changing about those generations is that they refuse to be stuck in categories so loved by the Boomers. They can't be so easily divided by class, gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

The post Boomer generations are incredibly tolerant. Obama's message of hope and unity resonates with them because they are already unified, and already children of the world.

My children, for instance, who are in their twenties and thirties, see nothing unusual about going to a wedding where two men or two women exchange vows. They all count gay individuals and gay couples among their friends. They don't see sexual orientation - or color or ethnicity or gender - when they choose friends.

All but one have been to Europe. One recently visited Cuba on an educational visa because he was invited by Cuban artists he met at art exhibits here in the U.S. The fact that Cuba is a communist country meant nothing to him. Another counts as one of his good friends a Muslim from Morocco. Another has a seven year old son whose best friends include a boy who is half French and half Iraqi, and a boy who is half English and half Japanese. My children and grandchildren don't divide the world up into categories, as Republicans do, and as Hillary, unfortunately, tried to do.

Division doesn't work with young Democrats, which is why now that Barack has all but clinched the nomination, I hope Hillary and her supporters join the unity march and give up their strategy of division. John Kennedy once said that the torch of governing had been passed to a new generation of Americans. Hillary and Bill Clinton came smack up against another torch passing, from the Boomers to the post-Boomers, and they did not see it. They need to see it now. John McCain will see it soon.

It has been a tough democratic primary fight, and those of us who supported Obama and became increasingly angry at Clinton did so mainly because we saw her as becoming too much like the Republicans who thrive on negativity and divisiveness. But should she give that up, she will redeem herself with us.

Many of the older women who supported Clinton (and older women were her base) did so because they have felt discriminated against in the past and desperately wanted a woman to be their champion. I understand that. But that fight, though not completely won, is largely in the past with the other Boomer causes. That is why her campaign ultimately did not succeed, and why Jeremiah Wright was ultimately rejected. They both wanted to continue the fights of the sixties and seventies, while the younger generations, including Obama's generation, have moved past those fights.

I fault Obama for one thing. He has not addressed the concerns of those women enough. He has never spoken to the concerns of these women because he sees his campaign as beyond that. But there are many women who I believe would come over to his side if he would at least address what they are thinking, what they have been through, the anger they still feel, and what they are hoping for. His late mother was of that generation, and her absence in his life may account for this hole in his strategy. But he needs to speak to more sixty and seventy year old women who can educate him. Then, Obama needs a speech to women, just as he needed a speech on race. I hope he gives one soon, or at least includes women's concerns in his acceptance speech in August and his Inaugural address in January, 2009.

After he does that, perhaps he can convince these women that Hillary wasn't the only one who can create a better world for them, their children, and their grandchildren. Barack and Michelle can do this - they can reach out to Hillary's supporters - women, working class whites, and Latinos - and Hillary can help them in the outreach if she really wants a Democrat to win this Fall. Already Barack's youthful supporters have begun a dialogue with their older Democratic cohorts (many of them have convinced their parents to support Obama) and are leading them into a better, more color blind, more gender blind, more united country, and then into a more international, more peaceful world.

Yes, they can! Yes, he can! Yes, we can!

Hillary Clinton does a disservice to feminism and to the women of this nation

What's with all this sexist pro-Hillary talk? A union leader says she has "testicular fortitude," a governor says she makes Rocky look like a "pansy, and now James Carville says if Hillary gave Obama one of her cajones, they'd each have two?

I thought Hillary was trying to break the "glass ceiling." I thought she wanted to prove that a woman could become president. I didn't think she was trying to prove that only a woman who is really a man is presidential material. I didn't think she wanted to be a male candidate, only masquerading as a woman.

I have long wanted to see the day when a woman could be elected president, but I wanted it to be a real woman, someone who is willing to use the very unique and powerful traits of womanhood to show men that there is another way to govern.

Now that Hillary Clinton is in the race, she and her supporters are trying to prove she is really a man, because in their estimation, apparently, those white, beer drinking, bowling, blue collar guys (what that idiot Chris Matthews calls "regular people") would never vote for a woman who wasn't really a man.

Back in the seventies, when I wholeheartedly embraced the woman's movement, I thought it was about more than equal pay for equal work. I thought it was about more than trying to prove that a woman was really the same as a man. One of the things I always promoted was the idea that men and women were different in many ways, and that is what was good about opening up lots of traditionally male jobs to them. Women had a different psychology, a different way of seeing and doing, and they provided a balance to the typical male way of doing things.

Having men and women work side by side strengthened the work force precisely because it brought new perspectives into the mix.

If Hillary Clinton were really trying to prove that a woman president would be an improvement on the male monopoly on the office of the presidency, she would be showing that different psychology to the nation. But she is not. She is trying to prove, by her "obliteration" remarks, her labeling of Obama as weak and elitist, and by her surrogates' use of offensive sexual innuendo about her anatomy, that she is really NOT a woman.

She doesn't represent me, she doesn't represent women, and she would be a ghastly first female president.

Hillary Clinton: fueling racism

There is simply no denying it anymore. A large segment of America is still, 145 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, steeped in hatred for and fear of African Americans. And nothing has brought it to the fore more than this year's presidential race.

Of course, ever since the Southern Strategy of Richard Nixon, when Republicans actively began courting racist whites in the South, turning the once Democratic area of the country Republican, race has been actively used to defeat Democratic presidential candidates.

But this year, for the first time, two Democrats are using race so that one of them can defeat another Democrat. And it sickens me.

I've tried to catch snippets of speeches by Bill and Hillary and they have gotten really good at sending out coded and not so coded messages to white working class voters (code: voters who aren't so keen on voting for a black man). They call Obama "elitist," for instance. How could that be racial code, you ask. Well, a working class white who has always had racist sentiments, doesn't want to ever think that a black man is better than him. So if you say that black man acts or talks like he is better, or even imply that the black man looks down on him, you are igniting that white supremacist mentality, even if that white man would never admit these feelings in public. "Elitist" is code for "uppity black." All Southerners know what that means. Now we know that there are a significant number of people in Ohio and Pennsylvania who carry around the same prejudice.

I have also heard Bill Clinton talk about Obama's campaign being willing to "beat up a girl." While it may sound silly and even demeaning to call Hillary a "girl," Bubba, a child of the South, knows exactly how such language plays. And it, too, is code.

In the South, for hundreds of years, black men were lynched for even looking at a white woman, let alone treating her with any kind of disrespect. There is a long history of whites in the South fearing the (imagined) behavior of black men towards their women. To accuse Obama and his campaign of "beating up on a girl" brings up all those fears and is one of the most coded racist things I can imagine Bill saying.

Then, of course, there's what he said about Jesse Jackson winning South Carolina twice, and what Geraldine Ferraro said about Obama only being where he is because he's black, giving a nod to the hatred working class whites have towards affirmative action.

If Clinton somehow grabs the nomination from Obama, it will mainly be because in the second half of her campaign, she used her own "Southern Strategy" and appealed in both overt and coded ways to the racism of the voters. She will have not only destroyed the ability of one of the most gifted politicians of our time to move us past the remaining vestiges of racism, she will have fueled the racism that remains. In other words, she and her husband will have made us worse as a country.

And I will never, ever, forgive her for that.

If Democrats were Republicans.....

In an interview on Nightline, Hillary Clinton said:

If we had the Republican rules, I would already be the nominee.

And as her good buddy James Carville famously says :

If ifs and buts were beer and nuts, we'd have a helluva party.

Let's take this thinking a little further.

If Democrats acted like Republicans:

We would threaten to obliterate Iran.

We would dismiss people of color and treat them as less important than whites.

We would support a gas tax holiday so we could lose more American jobs and put more money in the pockets of oil companies.

We would brag about our love of guns.

We would give George W. Bush authorization to obliterate Iraq.

We would cravenly pander to people whom we secretly despise.

We would care more about the votes of the "white working class" than the votes of the black working class.

We would pretend we were just plain folks even though we were multimillionaires.

We would lie about everything.

These are, after all, things George W. Bush and his Republican cohorts have done and continue to do.

Look closely, everyone. It is also what Hillary has done and is doing.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton should change parties.

The importance of strategy

In watching this presidential election melodrama unfold every four years, I have come to the conclusion that being an intelligent, talented, decent and charismatic candidate isn't enough to get you elected.

In fact, if you don't have what else it requires, these qualities can work against you. If you are intelligent they call you elitist. If you are talented, they say you don't have enough experience. If you are decent, they call you a wimp. And if you are charismatic they say all you know how to do is give a speech.

So you need something else. And I'm not talking about money.

For decades, the Republicans have defeated candidates who were intelligent, talented and decent (though not so charismatic) because the Democratic candidates did not have this other element.

So, if it's not money, what is it?

It's the ability to outstrategize your opponent.

Typically, Republicans use the strategies of pandering, dirty tricks, lies and smears, and this enables them to win. They are ruthless and completely devoid of conscience and a sense of fair play. Political campaigns are wars to them, with their opponent the enemy, and therefore undeserving of courtesy or fairness.

In this primary season, it's clear Hillary Clinton has become a Republican in her strategy. She has no conscience and no sense of fair play. She is pandering with her ridiculous gas tax holiday for the summer (before the election when she will have no power). She is dishonest (Bosnian sniper fire), and she is fine with the use of smear tactics (bringing up Hamas and Farrakhan and William Ayers and associating them unfairly with Obama). She has become a pro at taking things out of context and exploiting them, like the "bitter" comment or Rev. Wright's sermons, and she is increasingly using fear as a tactic, even including the face of Bin Laden in one of her commercials.

Hillary has decided that she cannot beat Obama unless she becomes a Republican in her strategy. This is because Obama has something she was not prepared for: charisma. What Gore and Kerry lacked, Obama has in abundance. And she couldn't defeat that, because when it comes to charisma, Hillary has none.

But Republican strategy isn't the only kind of strategy that can win, although it's the kind of strategy that has won for decades, (you must exclude the two Clinton victories in the nineties, which Clinton won only because Ross Perot stole enough votes from the Republicans to throw a monkey wrench into any strategy.)

Barack Obama has a different kind of strategy, one that is working to neutralize the smear tactics of the Clinton and McCain campaigns, without engaging in smears himself. However, avoiding smears doesn't mean always staying above the fray. Obama has had to do some things that some of his more progressive supporters criticize him for, like going on FOX News, and condemning Jeremiah Wright. The more ideological of progressives believe FOX is the enemy and should be boycotted, while much of what Jeremiah Wright said was actually valid and should not have been condemned by Obama.

But progressives make a huge mistake if they insist Obama remain pure and not engage in strategy. Obama can wage a positive campaign and still show the toughness he needs to show by going on FOX and condemning his former pastor. That's strategy. That's taking into account the number of votes he needs to win, and the kind of voters he needs to include in a broad enough coalition to be victorious over both Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

It's fine to have a progressive ideology and want your candidate to adhere to your ideas as well as your philosophical approach to campaigning, but if your candidate loses over and over again because he won't engage in tough strategy, your desired policies will never be implemented.

Obama is not the most progressive candidate this season. Kucinich was far more progressive. But Kucinich runs each year and never wins. Why? Because Kucinich refuses to be a real candidate who engages in tough strategy, which sometimes means talking to your political enemies, and other times doing things you wish you didn't have to do.

The Republicans (including Hillary Clinton) are willing to do anything, say anything and smear anyone in order to get elected. You can't expect Obama to just sit there and take it and still be elected. You can't expect him to remain pure and beat Clinton and McCain. He's doing the best job I've ever seen in keeping things positive, but you have to allow him to fight back.

Progressives have to stop trashing Obama for things like going on FOX News, or condemning his former pastor. His pastor had to be condemned, not just because he was bringing Obama down, but because he was making a spectacle of himself and distracting everyone from the real issues. He insisted on stepping into the campaign, and he got stepped on. He got what he deserved, no matter how good a humanitarian he has been, or how brilliant his thinking. And Obama had to go on FOX News to finally shut up Chris Wallace.

Waging a political campaign is not like sitting in a progressive think tank and discussing ideas. It is more like fighting a war, and Obama is fighting on two fronts right now and doing a darned good job. You progressives should be proud of him and stop giving him grief because he is doing what political candidates must - he is engaging in strategy. And he's doing it so maybe, just maybe, some of those progressive ideas you so desperately fight for might finally have a chance of being implemented.

McBush wants Hillary

John McBush, that old man who insists he is going to run a positive campaign, is out there shouting at the top of his frail lungs that Hamas is supporting Obama and that the people have a right to know.

Of course, Hamas is a terrorist organization, so if you tell people they are supporting Obama, some of the dopes in this county (and no one panders to dopes better than the Republicans) will believe Obama supports Hamas.

Obama, to the contrary, has made it very clear he condemns Hamas, as he condemns all terrorist organizations. What some terrorist organization in the Middle East thinks or wants really cannnot be known by anyone, and furthermore has nothing to do with our election.

To imply that there is any connection between Obama and Hamas is like charging Obama with treason, and McBush, who uses his reputation as a war hero to do and say anything he wants, should never go down this road. This is an absurd and a hateful accusation, but then so were the swift boat charges against John Kerry's heroism and war service.

While Hillary Clinton is implementing her kitchen sink strategy, McBush – that self-described positive campaigner, that "straight talker," that "maverick," - is using his swift boat strategy against Obama. McBush is just one more typical Republican saying one thing and doing another and counting on the ignorance of the voters not to see it.

What should we make of this double teaming against Obama – this union of a Republican and a Democrat against him? We know why Hillary is doing it. Obama is a pretender to her throne and it is driving her insane.

But why is McBush hauling out every vicious rumor imaginable against Obama, while Hillary gets a pass from him and other influential Republicans, like Rush Limbaugh, Tony Blankley, and Richard Mellon Scaife, some of whom are even praising her?

It can only mean one thing. The Republicans are terrified of an Obama candidacy and drooling over the possibility of running against Hillary.

If the Republicans were more afraid of Hillary than they were of Obama, they would be swift boating her now, so Obama could wrap up the nomination. But they are strangely silent or even complimentary of her. That should alert everyone to the truth. Obama is the most dangerous candidate, the one they don't think Republicans can beat. So they are dragging out all they have now to help Hillary and the Democrats get rid of him early.

One advantage of these attacks on Obama is that the Republicans have already played their hand. Should Obama win the nomination, we already know what the Republican smears will look like. They are already out there.

But the Republicans are holding their fire when it comes to Hillary. I think we can be confident they have tons of ammunition to use against her, but they are waiting. They won't use it now when it could defeat the candidate they want to run against. Instead, they want to defeat the stronger candidate now and they are teaming up with Hillary to do it.

I have wondered what they might have against her, and my guess is that it will be one or more bombshells. Perhaps they have evidence of Bill's infidelity after he left the White House. Revealing that will drag up all the ugliness of Monicagate and the impeachment and doom Hillary's candidacy. No one wants to go there again. Perhaps they will drag up something from her past, or some secretly taped words that will further antagonize the African American community, without whose support she cannot win. Or perhaps there are some financial improprieties.

Whatever they have, you can be sure it is something incredibly damaging. No one does smears better than Republicans, and having McBush at the top of the ticket simply lulls Democrats into a false sense of security that they can trust him to run a positive campaign. If McBush is running a negative campaign now, before the Democrats even have their nominee, what do they think he will do later, when the stakes are higher?

McBush learned his lesson in 2000 when he was smeared by his own Party. He'll never rise above the fray again, no matter what he says. Look what he's doing to Obama now. No, his 2008 campaign is liable to be uglier than the 2004 Bush campaign. And he can't wait to go after Hillary.

What is he doing?

Bill Moyers is televising an interview with Reverend Jeremiah Wright on tonight's Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS.

I usually watch the Journal, and imagine I am one of about three who do so. It isn't a highly viewed program, and it is not viewed at all by people who are not progressives.

It is likely to have a much larger audience tonight, however, as the program released some clips from the pre-taped show that has had the cable show pundits' panties in a twist. Everyone on those shows is saying what a disaster this is for Obama, to bring up this controversy again, and they are using the clips to further criticize Obama.

In one, for instance, Wright responds to Moyers' question about how he felt when Obama distanced himself from him. "He does what he does and I do what I do," Wright said, adding that he (Wright) was a pastor, and Obama a politican. There appeared to be no negative connotation to the quote, but once again, it was taken out of context. To people like Joe Scarborough, though, who transformed Wright's words into "Obama is just a TYPICAL politican," Wright was "throwing him under the bus."

I admit I don't know what Moyers is doing here. If indeed this is an interview that will hurt Obama (and we haven't yet seen the whole interview so we don't know that) why is he doing it? Is he a shill for Hillary?

We know that before he became a journalist, Moyers was a political operative in the Johnson White House, and largely responsible for the little girl with the daisy ad. So he can be one tough strategist. This could be a deliberate attempt to resurrect the Wright controversy to hurt Obama and help Clinton.

We also know, however, that after he left the Johnson White House, and especially recently, Moyers has been a highly progressive journalist and television personality who has promoted the causes and ideas most akin to those of Obama. Is it possible that the clips he released are the most controversial, meant to get attention from the nitwit pundits on cable news? Is it possible that the interview, in its entirely, is far more favorable to Obama, and that Moyers has outsmarted the pro-Hillary, pro-McCain pundits by releasing some very misleading clips which will get Obama's critics to watch?

Or is Moyers, an ordained minister, not being political, but rather simply charitable to a fellow minister, giving him a chance at redemption?

Or finally, has Moyers now morphed into a publicity seeking television star, and this is only about ratings?

We'll see tonight, as I and a lot of new viewers will tune in.

It was never going to be easy

I and other Obama supporters should have known better.

First, we got all fired up over his Iowa surprise win. Then we got ecstatic over his 11 state victories in a row. Then we rationalized that his loss in Texas really got him more delegates so it wasn't a big deal.

But each time we had reason to hope that this time it would be different, that this time the American people were moving past race, ready to finally put the nail in the Clinton political coffin, and really ready to change the way politics is done in this country, we got shot down by the old tactics, the slash and burn campiagns of past years, the pathology of the Clintons, and the lingering racism of far too many voters.

We should have known that, no matter how different and ecxiting our candidate was, no matter how reminiscent of JFK or RFK, no matter how brilliant and seemingly post-racial, it was never going to be easy for him to secure the nomination. And no matter how many times we try to convince ourselves that he still can, that there are enough good and decent people who will not vote against him because he is black, we inevitably come up against three realities: Far too many older women - women who were there when feminism first began - want to see a female president before they die; far too many white voters still will not vote for a (1/2) black candidate, no matter how brilliant or post racial; and the narcissism and power madness of the Clintons will stop at nothing to destroy Obama.

After Pennsylvania, much of the press seems to be rooting for her and gunning for Obama and exit polls from Pennsylvania show just how powerful a factor race still is. The very fact that a sizable number of her supporters say they will vote for McCain if she is not the nominee is really all you need to know about how much of a factor race plays in elections in this country.

If these were loyal democrats who simply preferred Clinton to Obama, but found themselves faced with an Obama victory in the primaries, they would either vote for Obama, or simply sit out in November, especially since there is so little difference between their two policies. But because so many are willing to vote for someone with a completely different political philosophy which amounts to a continuation of Bush policy, there can be only one reason they would move from Clinton to McCain. They will only vote for the white candidate.

Unlike Clinton voters who say they will not vote for Obama, the far fewer Obama voters who say they will not vote for Clinton, do so mainly because they are appalled by her tactics, many of them subtle appeals to the racism of her supporters. She has so violated the trust they once had in her and her husband, so much trust that they thought of him as the "first black president," that it would be morally wrong - in their minds - to support this tactical but subtle racism on the part of the Clinton campaign.

While we never thought it would be easy to nominate and elect Obama, we underestimated the amount of racism still lingering in the nation. And we certainly weren't prepard for it to be used by the Clintons.

Barack can still win the nomination, but it becomes harder and harder as she attacks him with subtle racial digs, lies and distorts her ability to win, and as the MSM piles on and repeats her propaganda. And should she wrest the nomination from him by her sleazy disgusting tactics, it will be a long time before a viable African American candidate comes forward again. The Clinton tactics, backed up the main stream media, have made it clear. No black candidate will be treated fairly because no black candidate will ever be allowed to win as long as they have anything to say about it.

The Clintons are phonies, with no hearts, and with political plasma running through their veins. Nothing else matters to them except winning. And if that means destroying the most decent and gifted (but black) politician to come along in decades, they will do it.

They will destroy the country rather than allow this young, bold and charismatic leader to win what they believe is rightfully theirs. They will never give up.

If Hillary Clinton succeeds in her ugly tactics to destroy her rival and steal the nomination, using Rovian reptilian tactics, I hope with all my heart that she loses, not just the presidential race, but the next senatorial race that she wages. I hope she never again wins any political office because she has burned so many bridges behind her. I hope she and her husband have finally destroyed their legacy, because what they are doing is immoral, unconscionable, and highly destructive. They even appear willing to destroy the Party to get what they want.

I return to my original realization. It was never going to be easy, in the land that at its founding approved of slavery, the land that fought a war over whether it would be allowed to continue, the land where even though slavery was outlawed, segration and Jim Crow remained, the land where racism lives in the hearts of many Americans, not just in the south, but apparently in Ohio and Pennsylvania. (And some call this a 'Christian country?")

It was never going to be easy, and Hillary and Bill Clinton's pathological narcissism has made it even more difficult, for Obama to be the first black president.

One thing is certain after this nominating process, perhaps the only comfort we can find should Obama lose the nomination: Bill Clinton will never, ever again be called "the nation's first black president." That nonsense is over.

It all depends on what the meaning of "votes" is

The current Hillary Clinton campaign strategy could have easily been predicted back in 1999 when her husband, questioned about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, famously said "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Yesterday Hillary and surrogates started blathering about her having won more votes than Barack Obama. To her, it all depends on what the meaning of "votes" is.

While most of us who are keeping track, including Democratic Party officials, see Barack with more delegates and more of the popular vote, Hillary – like her husband – calculates things differently. She doesn't count the actual votes from some of Obama's caucus wins, and she counts the votes from both Florida and Michigan. Since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, it is impossible to even see that as a contest where votes should count. And since she agreed ahead of time that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count, she's pulling a Bill Clinton by wanting to count them now.

She's also trying to change the rules of the game – rules the Democratic Party set up and she agreed to - in other ways.

For instance, she thinks popular votes should count more than number of delegates.

She thinks the votes in large states should count more than votes in small states.

She thinks she should be nominated because she has won in the states the Dems need in November.

She thinks pledged delegates should be free to change their votes from Obama to her.

She thinks superdelegates should overrule the pledged delegates if necessary for her to win.

Some people who are calling Clinton on her dishonest tactics say she is trying to move the goal posts, making it impossible for Obama to get a touchdown and put this game away. Since Americans like to use sports analogies, let's use two more to explain what Clinton is doing.

She's saying that free throws shouldn't count in basketball because they give the shooter an unfair advantage.

She's saying that a baseball team should be able to win a game if it put more people on base, rather than got more people to home plate.

Here in America, we use sports metaphors for a reason. We like the idea of fair play, of adhering to the rules of the game. Clinton, however, is not playing by the rules. She is trying to change the rules in mid-game, and most Americans reject those kind of tactics.

She IS not playing fair. But then, I guess it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

Hillary and the "race chasm"

Simply the best article on how Hillary is using race to steal the nomination from Obama.

Check out the article by David Sirota to read his prediction regarding her tactics, and to see the graph he refers to in this quote:

To date, 42 states and the District of Columbia have voted in primaries or caucuses. Factor out the two senators’ home states (Illinois, New York and Arkansas), the two states where Edwards was a major factor (New Hampshire and Iowa) and the one state where only Clinton was on the ballot (Michigan) and you are left with 37 elections where the head-to-head Clinton-Obama matchup has been most clear. Subtract the Latino factor (a hugely important but wholly separate influence on the election) by removing the four states whose Hispanic population is over 25 percent (California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona), and you are left with 33 elections that best represent how the black-white split has impacted the campaign.

As the Race Chasm graph shows, when you chart Obama’s margin of victory or defeat against the percentage of African-Americans living in that state, a striking U trend emerges. That precipitous dip in Obama’s performance in states with a big-but-not-huge African-American population is the Race Chasm—and that chasm is no coincidence.

On the left of the graph, among the states with the smallest black population, Obama has destroyed Clinton. With the candidates differing little on issues, this trend is likely due, in part, to the fact that black-white racial politics are all but non-existent in nearly totally white states. Thus, Clinton has fewer built-in advantages. Though some of these states like Idaho or Wyoming have reputations for intolerance thanks to the occasional militia headlines, black-white interaction in these places is not a
part of people’s daily lives, nor their political decisions. Put another way, the dialect of racism—the hints of the Ferraro comment and codes of Bill Clinton’s Jesse Jackson reference, for instance—is not politically effective because such language has not historically been a significant part of the local political discussion. That’s especially true in the liberal-skewed Democratic primary.

On the right of the graph among the states with the largest black populations, Obama has also crushed Clinton. Unlike the super-white states, these states—many in the Deep South—have a long and sordid history of day-to-day, black-white racial politics, with Richard Nixon famously pioneering Republican’s “southern strategy” to maximize the racist segregationist vote in general elections. “But in the Democratic primary the black vote is so huge [in these states], it can overwhelm the white vote,” says Thomas Schaller, a political science professor at the University of Maryland—Baltimore. That black vote has gone primarily to Obama, helping him win these states by big margins.

It is in the chasm where Clinton has consistently defeated Obama. These are geographically diverse states from Ohio to Oklahoma to Massachusetts where racial politics is very much a part of the political culture, but where the black vote is too small to offset a white vote racially motivated by the Clinton campaign’s coded messages and tactics. The chasm exists in the cluster of states whose population is above 6 percent and below 17 percent black, and Clinton has won most of them by beating Obama handily among white working-class voters.

In sum, Obama has only been able to eke out victories in three states with Race Chasm demographics, where African-American populations make up more than 6 percent but less than 17 percent of the total population. And those three states provided him extra advantages: He won Illinois, his home state; Missouri, an Illinois border state; and Connecticut, a state whose Democratic electorate just two years before supported Ned Lamont’s insurgent candidacy against Joe Lieberman, and therefore had uniquely developed infrastructure and political cultures inclined to support an outsider candidacy. Meanwhile, three-quarters of all the states Clinton has won are those with Race Chasm demographics.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), a Clinton supporter, publicly acknowledged this dynamic in February. He suggested to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board that Obama’s ethnicity could prevent him from winning the state, which, at 10.6 percent black, falls squarely in the Race Chasm.

Hillary threatens nuclear war

Brits first called it the silly season, and now so do we. But it is so much more than silly.

Political campaign seasons have become idiotic, insane, and dangerous.

A Republican Candidate who ran from fighting in Vietnam labels a Veietnam war hero a coward and liar in 2004.

A Republican Campaign labels a Democratic, Christian, church-going black man a Muslim in order to scare voters in 2008. A Democratic Campaign opposing the man does nothing to condemn that nonsense because having people believe the lie helps her cause, even though she herself never goes to church.

A network asks gotcha questions that have nothing to do with the real and dangerous problems this country faces.

Pundits care more about making predictions and fueling the fight than about educating the public.

Candidates lie and distort and ruin opponents who would make far better presidents than they would.

And now this week a Democratic candidate, and you know who she is, is saying she will obliterate (read: nuke) Iran if it ever tries to launch an attack on Israel.

No candidate should be threatening nuclear attack, no matter how macho it makes them look to the college drop-out, gun toting warmongers of a rust belt state that she needs to beat a charismatic male who young people, educated people, and progressive people are working their tails off to elect.

Hillary Clinton, if elected, could turn out to more of a disaster than George Bush, just to prove she has balls.

This is the dark side of feminism, and I - a long time feminist - want no part of it. No feminist worth the name should ever in a million years threaten nuclear war. Feminism is not just about having the same pay as men, or having the same opportunities as men. Feminism is about bringing female attributes to society, and helping to bring men and women together to learn from each other and understand each other.

It is not, and never should be, about threatening nuclear war.

What on earth is she thinking?

Electability 101

Is Barack Obama really unelectable, or is Hillary trying her darndest to make him so?