In the bizarre and obsessed relationship between Hillary Clinton and the media over the last two news cycles, the earth shaking reality of the first African American being nominated for president has been somewhat underplayed.
In the months to come, however, even as Barack Obama wants to run a campaign that rises above race, the reality of Barack's ancestry and how it factors into his success will be looked at from many different directions. So before all the big hitters write stories in the WSJ and the NYT, I want to put in my two cents.
It is no small thing that Barack Obama is not an African American in the sense that we usually define African Americans in this country. Nor is it a mere side issue that he is bi-racial.
Barack is not called "African American" because he is the descendent of slaves who were kidnapped and brought by white men to America from Africa. Barack does not have ancestors who were slaves. Barack is the son of a free black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. Barack was raised, except for a brief time in Indonesia, by a white mother and white grandparents, mainly in Hawaii. Until his college years and especially his time in the South side of Chicago, Barack has little connection to the black American community. In fact, it can be and has been argued that Barack's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ was, in part, a deliberate attempt to educate himself in black culture so that he could understand a part of America, a part that people saw reflected in his skin color but that had not been part of his upbringing or personal history.
Previous black candidates in the presidential primaries have been African Americans in the traditional sense. Born in this country to black parents, descendents of slaves, and steeped in the culture of the black community and the civil rights movement, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could not identify with the white community and vice versa. Their presidential runs were important and helpful to the black community and to the cause of equality and justice, but each knew they would not win without the white vote, which they could not get for many reasons, one of which is that they had never been part of the white community.
Barack has been part of that community. It was his earliest community, and while he has made the choice to see himself as black, he embodies and to some extent understands both races. This is the real psychological key to his ability to unify people. He had to unify the reality of two races within himself, in much the same way we hope he can help unify the two races within the country. It was a personal struggle for him, and he understands that it will be a struggle within the country. It is not, however, a struggle he shies away from.
Barack says he is something of a rorschach test; people see in him what they want to see. Blacks see a man who understands them and their struggles. Because of his skin color, he has experienced racism. Because of his participation in Trinity United Church, he can identify with the fear and anger of black members, even as he rejects some of the more outrageous statements and views of the church leadership.
While some whites reject Obama out of the fear, ignorance, and resentment that fuels racism, other whites embrace him because he seems to understand them. He doesn't resent them, nor see them as oppressors nor relate to them as anything but equals. Even his joke about "my cousin Dick Cheney" which he rattles off to amuse his audience, is seen as funny not because Cheney is white and he is black, but because Cheney is a neocon, a Republican, and Obama is anti-war and a Democrat. Race has nothing to do with why we laugh.
Obama often says "we are the ones we have been waiting for" because he knows all of us must renew America. But in a very real sense, Obama is the one - the first potential black president - we have been waiting for. Obama's very identity and heritage - as half black and half white - has at least been partly responsible for his rise to power. Each one of us can see something of ourselves in him and know he can identify with us, regardless of our race. And that makes him, in this year and this time, more electable than someone like Jesse Jackson.
My hope is that this is merely a step towards the day when someone who is considered 100 percent black (I say "considered" because DNA studies are teaching us that none of us is 100 percent anything), or Hispanic, or Asian, or Native American, will be able to rise to the presidency, because race and identity is no longer an issue in a country where everyone is truly equal to everyone else and racism and prejudice no longer exist.
But in the meantime, hopefully, we will have President Barack Obama.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
The two men who defeated Hillary
An interesting article on what went wrong in the Clinton campaign. The WSJ says Clinton's loss was largely the result of the power of two men - Bill Clinton and Mark Penn - who vetoed some of the better ideas and caused some of the biggest problems.
Every candidate is different, of course, and needs to run his or her own kind of race, but what Hillary's campaign may teach us is that if a woman wants to run successfully for president, she shouldn't rely primarily on men and male psychology.
Ultimately, it may be two men who are responsible for Hillary's loss, and one of those men is not named Barack Obama.
Every candidate is different, of course, and needs to run his or her own kind of race, but what Hillary's campaign may teach us is that if a woman wants to run successfully for president, she shouldn't rely primarily on men and male psychology.
Ultimately, it may be two men who are responsible for Hillary's loss, and one of those men is not named Barack Obama.
Healing the family feud
The primary season is finally over and we must move forward and do everything we can to defeat John McCain and put a Democrat back in the White House.
This is where the really hard work begins.
Those of us who argued and fought over who would make the better Democratic candidate were able to argue as family members who know each other too well.
Obama supprters and Clinton supporters remained loyal to their preferred candidate for largely personal reasons that had very little to do with the candidates' policies. We knew these candidates - especially Clinton - and decided we liked them or didn't like them personally. We saw them as symbols, got angry when they competed a little too vigorously or - in our minds - unfairly, and threatened to leave the family if the other one became the favorite. We fought as family members fought - about heirarchy and taking one's turn and being the favorite. We got much more personal than we get with those outside our Party.
That, hopefully, is nearing an end. In time, I hope Clinton's many supporters will decide to stay in the family and realize that no matter how bitter the fight became (and no fights can be more ugly than family fights) this is the family that has always nurtured them and will continue to nurture them.
Now we must adopt a different strategy. We must now turn our attention to John McCain, the real opponent of Senator Obama, and in my opinion, the real opponent of what is best for this country. We must use our influence and powers of persuasion to help Americans see that a McCain presidency would be as much of a disaster as the Bush presidency has been. This will require much more investigation of policy matters, stuff that isn't as easy as simply attacking someone's style or behavior or even identity.
But it is going to require something else as well. This election will require us all to combat the racism that remains in this country, racism that will come in the form of racially coded, dog whistle attacks on Barack Obama by the Republicans. These attacks will include a renewed focus on his former minister and former church, attempts to portray his wife as a scary and aggressive woman, attempts to define him as a foreigner, a Muslim, or not "one of us."
This is one of the reasons why so many of us wanted Senator Clinton to immediately concede on Tuesday night and endorse Obama. Senator Clinton has often said she does not think Obama can be elected, and had hinted that part of the reason she feels this way is because she understands the amount of prejudice that still exists in our nation. However, we Obama supporters don't need Senator Clinton to remind us of this. We are well aware of the racism that remains in certain parts of the country. We don't support Obama because we are naive and think the days of racism are gone. We know the task ahead. We know the odds. We know it will be difficult to overcome the mindset that still exists within too many citizens. We simply think the fight is winnable, and ultimately worth it. We believe the American people can be convinced. We think they can, one by one, overcome their reservations once they a) really get to know Barack Obama and b)remember what John McCain represents - four more years of failed policies.
We also know that the primary campaign, while in many ways a good testing ground for Obama, also wounded him, and Hillary Clinton did some of the wounding. We wanted her to concede, not because we wanted to humiliate her or her supporters, or lord it over her, but because we know how powerful she is, and how crucial her support is to a November victory. We also know there is no time to waste.
Hillary Clinton can do a great deal to help Obama win the election. Her words, if chosen very carefully and delivered sincerely and forcefully, will help her supporters see the importance of letting go of their disappointment and anger. Her actions will be an example for her supporters, who see her as a role model.
It will be a tough fight to elect the nation's first black president. It was tough to elect the first black nominee. He almost lost at the end, partly because of the latent racism that emerged after the Jeremiah Wright controversy. It will take all of us to help him win this campaign.
So it's time to let go of anger and resentment. I am letting go of mine, but know it will be harder for others to let go of theirs. Perhaps it will help to look at what has gone on these past five months as an ugly family feud that now needs to end. I hope Senator Clinton will find the right words to help bring it to an end.
For five months Hillary Clinton has identified herself as a fighter, and she definitely has proven herself to be that. Now she has a different role. Now she must be a healer. Soon, the Party will call on her fighting abilities again, but on Saturday, she needs to put down her sword and her shield and speak the words of reconciliation. With the enormous power she wields, what she does and what she says on Saturday can be as important as anything Barack Obama does or says over the next five months.
I hope her supporters take comfort in the fact that she is now the most powerful woman in the country, even though she is not the nominee for president. And she will remain the most powerful woman in the country, whether or not she becomes the vice presidential nominee. No one can take that away from her.
This is where the really hard work begins.
Those of us who argued and fought over who would make the better Democratic candidate were able to argue as family members who know each other too well.
Obama supprters and Clinton supporters remained loyal to their preferred candidate for largely personal reasons that had very little to do with the candidates' policies. We knew these candidates - especially Clinton - and decided we liked them or didn't like them personally. We saw them as symbols, got angry when they competed a little too vigorously or - in our minds - unfairly, and threatened to leave the family if the other one became the favorite. We fought as family members fought - about heirarchy and taking one's turn and being the favorite. We got much more personal than we get with those outside our Party.
That, hopefully, is nearing an end. In time, I hope Clinton's many supporters will decide to stay in the family and realize that no matter how bitter the fight became (and no fights can be more ugly than family fights) this is the family that has always nurtured them and will continue to nurture them.
Now we must adopt a different strategy. We must now turn our attention to John McCain, the real opponent of Senator Obama, and in my opinion, the real opponent of what is best for this country. We must use our influence and powers of persuasion to help Americans see that a McCain presidency would be as much of a disaster as the Bush presidency has been. This will require much more investigation of policy matters, stuff that isn't as easy as simply attacking someone's style or behavior or even identity.
But it is going to require something else as well. This election will require us all to combat the racism that remains in this country, racism that will come in the form of racially coded, dog whistle attacks on Barack Obama by the Republicans. These attacks will include a renewed focus on his former minister and former church, attempts to portray his wife as a scary and aggressive woman, attempts to define him as a foreigner, a Muslim, or not "one of us."
This is one of the reasons why so many of us wanted Senator Clinton to immediately concede on Tuesday night and endorse Obama. Senator Clinton has often said she does not think Obama can be elected, and had hinted that part of the reason she feels this way is because she understands the amount of prejudice that still exists in our nation. However, we Obama supporters don't need Senator Clinton to remind us of this. We are well aware of the racism that remains in certain parts of the country. We don't support Obama because we are naive and think the days of racism are gone. We know the task ahead. We know the odds. We know it will be difficult to overcome the mindset that still exists within too many citizens. We simply think the fight is winnable, and ultimately worth it. We believe the American people can be convinced. We think they can, one by one, overcome their reservations once they a) really get to know Barack Obama and b)remember what John McCain represents - four more years of failed policies.
We also know that the primary campaign, while in many ways a good testing ground for Obama, also wounded him, and Hillary Clinton did some of the wounding. We wanted her to concede, not because we wanted to humiliate her or her supporters, or lord it over her, but because we know how powerful she is, and how crucial her support is to a November victory. We also know there is no time to waste.
Hillary Clinton can do a great deal to help Obama win the election. Her words, if chosen very carefully and delivered sincerely and forcefully, will help her supporters see the importance of letting go of their disappointment and anger. Her actions will be an example for her supporters, who see her as a role model.
It will be a tough fight to elect the nation's first black president. It was tough to elect the first black nominee. He almost lost at the end, partly because of the latent racism that emerged after the Jeremiah Wright controversy. It will take all of us to help him win this campaign.
So it's time to let go of anger and resentment. I am letting go of mine, but know it will be harder for others to let go of theirs. Perhaps it will help to look at what has gone on these past five months as an ugly family feud that now needs to end. I hope Senator Clinton will find the right words to help bring it to an end.
For five months Hillary Clinton has identified herself as a fighter, and she definitely has proven herself to be that. Now she has a different role. Now she must be a healer. Soon, the Party will call on her fighting abilities again, but on Saturday, she needs to put down her sword and her shield and speak the words of reconciliation. With the enormous power she wields, what she does and what she says on Saturday can be as important as anything Barack Obama does or says over the next five months.
I hope her supporters take comfort in the fact that she is now the most powerful woman in the country, even though she is not the nominee for president. And she will remain the most powerful woman in the country, whether or not she becomes the vice presidential nominee. No one can take that away from her.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Random thoughts about winning and losing
Well it seems Hillary is finally going to concede - not today, not tomorrow, not Friday, but on Saturday.
I really hope she gives one hell of a speech because she owes that to Obama, and she certainly has time to write it. She has had the media focused totally on her for 36 hours now, from yesterday morning when it leaked out that she might concede that night, until this evening when she finally was forced to announce that she would concede - after conference calls from Democratic Senators and Representatives. All this media focus took away from the historic victory of Barack Obama, the first ever nomination of an African American for the presidency of the United States.
Everyone knows it's easier to win than to lose, and so we know it was hard for Clinton to admit defeat. But it is even more difficult when you have been living a delusion for months. Ever since Texas and Ohio, when Clinton could not pull off big enough victories to enable her to catch up in delegates, experts have been telling her she did not have the math on her side. It was nearly impossible to win, they said over and over. Yet her supporters, who often accuse Obama supporters of drinking the Kool-Aid, had apparently drunk their own potion, because they would not believe reality.
And thus we read articles like this today, showing just how delusional Clinton's supporters were. Yesterday shouldn't have been the wake up call. That should have happened months ago.
Clinton's supporters also must be disheartened because Hillary had been telling them for months that she was going to convince the superdelegates to be on her side, to give her the nomination even if she was behind Obama in the delegate count. In other words, she was saying she would ignore the will of the people and the rules of the Democratic Party regarding the importance of delegates and rely on party insiders to give her the nomination. Yet now that her plan has backfired and the superdelegates, seeing that he was ahead in delegate count, all ran to Obama on the last day of the primary, she and her supporters are left not only stunned, but convinced they have been robbed.
I have wondered for the duration of this campaign why Hillary has such a hard time playing by the rules, why she attempts to change the rules when she is behind, and why the first serious female presidential candidate in history acts so unsportsmanlike, so contrary to the rules and etiquette of politics, so much like girls and women acted prior to the feminist revolution. And the only answer I can come up with is that she and many of her older supporters never really played team sports. If they had, they would have learned you can't get away with the things she has tried to get away with - not in sports, and not in politics, the greatest sport of all.
Hillary doesn't seem to understand that when you are losing the baseball game at the end of nine full innings, you accept defeat. You don't scream that you closed strong, getting five runs in the last three innings and therefore you should win, even if the other team was ahead by ten runs. You don't insist that the winner should be determined by who got the most hits, not who got the most runs. You don't announce to the crowd at the end of the game that your team has been victorious and that you aren't sure you will accept the results as posted on the scoreboard. And you don't turn your back on a member of the opposing team and refuse to shake hands after they beat you.
If you do those things, one or more of the umpires or some of your teammates will take you aside, introduce you to reality and embarass you in front of an audience. That is what members of the House and Senate did today to Hillary Clinton.
The good news is (although I will only believe it when I actually see and hear it) she has listened to the umpires and her teammates. The bad news is she stepped on a historic moment and she can't take that back.
She has embarassed herself.
I really hope she gives one hell of a speech because she owes that to Obama, and she certainly has time to write it. She has had the media focused totally on her for 36 hours now, from yesterday morning when it leaked out that she might concede that night, until this evening when she finally was forced to announce that she would concede - after conference calls from Democratic Senators and Representatives. All this media focus took away from the historic victory of Barack Obama, the first ever nomination of an African American for the presidency of the United States.
Everyone knows it's easier to win than to lose, and so we know it was hard for Clinton to admit defeat. But it is even more difficult when you have been living a delusion for months. Ever since Texas and Ohio, when Clinton could not pull off big enough victories to enable her to catch up in delegates, experts have been telling her she did not have the math on her side. It was nearly impossible to win, they said over and over. Yet her supporters, who often accuse Obama supporters of drinking the Kool-Aid, had apparently drunk their own potion, because they would not believe reality.
And thus we read articles like this today, showing just how delusional Clinton's supporters were. Yesterday shouldn't have been the wake up call. That should have happened months ago.
Clinton's supporters also must be disheartened because Hillary had been telling them for months that she was going to convince the superdelegates to be on her side, to give her the nomination even if she was behind Obama in the delegate count. In other words, she was saying she would ignore the will of the people and the rules of the Democratic Party regarding the importance of delegates and rely on party insiders to give her the nomination. Yet now that her plan has backfired and the superdelegates, seeing that he was ahead in delegate count, all ran to Obama on the last day of the primary, she and her supporters are left not only stunned, but convinced they have been robbed.
I have wondered for the duration of this campaign why Hillary has such a hard time playing by the rules, why she attempts to change the rules when she is behind, and why the first serious female presidential candidate in history acts so unsportsmanlike, so contrary to the rules and etiquette of politics, so much like girls and women acted prior to the feminist revolution. And the only answer I can come up with is that she and many of her older supporters never really played team sports. If they had, they would have learned you can't get away with the things she has tried to get away with - not in sports, and not in politics, the greatest sport of all.
Hillary doesn't seem to understand that when you are losing the baseball game at the end of nine full innings, you accept defeat. You don't scream that you closed strong, getting five runs in the last three innings and therefore you should win, even if the other team was ahead by ten runs. You don't insist that the winner should be determined by who got the most hits, not who got the most runs. You don't announce to the crowd at the end of the game that your team has been victorious and that you aren't sure you will accept the results as posted on the scoreboard. And you don't turn your back on a member of the opposing team and refuse to shake hands after they beat you.
If you do those things, one or more of the umpires or some of your teammates will take you aside, introduce you to reality and embarass you in front of an audience. That is what members of the House and Senate did today to Hillary Clinton.
The good news is (although I will only believe it when I actually see and hear it) she has listened to the umpires and her teammates. The bad news is she stepped on a historic moment and she can't take that back.
She has embarassed herself.
Hillary and her supporters do not help the cause of feminism
She's had two chances now - last night at her speech to supporters, and today at the AIPAC conference - and she just won't do it. She won't concede and congratulate Obama.
Some of her supporters have apparently decided to organize a Hillary for President campaign outside of the Democratic Party. Others say she "needs time" to come to grips with reality and to reconcile herself to her loss.
There has never, to my knowledge, been a primary election candidate who after losing was given time to come to grips with his or her loss. Every losing candidate, on the night the nomination is secured with the required number of delegates, calls the winner and graciously concedes.
Why is Hillary allowed to do otherwise? Why is everyone so afraid of her?
Do they really think all 17 million of her supporters will vote for John McCain in the Fall? Really?
More than half of her votes are from women, and will these women really be willing to allow conservative pro-life John McCain to nominate four conservative justices to the Supreme Court? Really?
Will these women, many of them mothers, really be willing to allow this war to continue and kill more of their sons and daughters? Really?
For what great cause are they willing to do this?
Or are they simply doing it out of spite?
Are they really that self-destructive, that masochistic?
Barack Obama has done absolutely nothing to deserve this anger, this spitefulness. No, he didn't "wait his turn," but this isn't hopscotch, this is politics, this is our future, this is the future of the world. Barack Obama truly believed he could transform this country. So did Hillary. He won. Now it is time for her to endorse him and act like a grown-up, and a true feminist who competes equally with rivals.
Obama has always been courteous and gracious to her. He has not used a kitchen sink strategy the way she did, throwing every negative thing at him she could find. He's also not the one who tried to change the rules regarding Michigan and Florida.
Obama outcampaigned her, outstrategized her, and won the nomination. It's as simple as that. If she and her followers refuse to accept that, and are willing to work to deny him victory in November, then they are not true Democrats and they might as well leave the Party now.
Furthermore, they have betrayed the woman's movement. Because the woman's movement was never about giving women an unfair advantage, or making men stand down so women could have "their turn." The woman's movement was about equality for all. I think some women have forgotten that.
Some of her supporters have apparently decided to organize a Hillary for President campaign outside of the Democratic Party. Others say she "needs time" to come to grips with reality and to reconcile herself to her loss.
There has never, to my knowledge, been a primary election candidate who after losing was given time to come to grips with his or her loss. Every losing candidate, on the night the nomination is secured with the required number of delegates, calls the winner and graciously concedes.
Why is Hillary allowed to do otherwise? Why is everyone so afraid of her?
Do they really think all 17 million of her supporters will vote for John McCain in the Fall? Really?
More than half of her votes are from women, and will these women really be willing to allow conservative pro-life John McCain to nominate four conservative justices to the Supreme Court? Really?
Will these women, many of them mothers, really be willing to allow this war to continue and kill more of their sons and daughters? Really?
For what great cause are they willing to do this?
Or are they simply doing it out of spite?
Are they really that self-destructive, that masochistic?
Barack Obama has done absolutely nothing to deserve this anger, this spitefulness. No, he didn't "wait his turn," but this isn't hopscotch, this is politics, this is our future, this is the future of the world. Barack Obama truly believed he could transform this country. So did Hillary. He won. Now it is time for her to endorse him and act like a grown-up, and a true feminist who competes equally with rivals.
Obama has always been courteous and gracious to her. He has not used a kitchen sink strategy the way she did, throwing every negative thing at him she could find. He's also not the one who tried to change the rules regarding Michigan and Florida.
Obama outcampaigned her, outstrategized her, and won the nomination. It's as simple as that. If she and her followers refuse to accept that, and are willing to work to deny him victory in November, then they are not true Democrats and they might as well leave the Party now.
Furthermore, they have betrayed the woman's movement. Because the woman's movement was never about giving women an unfair advantage, or making men stand down so women could have "their turn." The woman's movement was about equality for all. I think some women have forgotten that.
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Voting on the basis of race and gender
This morning on MSNBC, columnist Richard Cohen and regular contributor Pat Buchanan were arguing about what constitutes "racism" and what is simply "voting for your tribe," as Buchanan called it.
Cohen said that this election exposed the racism that is still in this country but that has not been talked about in a long time. He cites exit polls in many Appalachian states where white voters said race had played a role in their choice of candidates, and of these a majority voted for Hillary Clinton.
Buchanan said he saw no difference between blacks in Philadelphia voting for Barack because he is black and whites in West Virginia voting for Hillary because she is white.
Cohen replied that the difference was that many whites in West Virginia were actually voting against Barack because of his race, while in Philly blacks may have been voting for Barack because of his race, but were not voting against Hillary because of either race or gender.
Pat Buchanan is not the only white commentator, nor white American, who fails to see a distinction between African American citizens voting for a fellow black American and white citizens voting for a fellow white American. They are both examples of voting for your tribe and should be seen as perfectly acceptable, according to Buchanan.
I almost don't know how to respond to this. It's one of those things that no matter how you argue it, the other side simply does not get it. But I will try.
First off, blacks have more often than not voted for white candidates, sometimes because the white candidate was better than the black candidate, sometimes because the white candidate was the only candidate. In presidential contests, there have been very few black candidates an African American could vote for. The fact that for the first time in the history of this country there is the actual possibility that an African American could become president is something extraordinary, and it seems logical to me that a majority (though not all) of African Americans would see this as a historic opportunity to elect one of their own. The large majorities of women who support Hillary Clinton feel exactly the same way about voting for a woman for the first time.
It should be said that African Americans are not voting overwhelmingly for Barack Obama just because he is black, but also because he is a gifted candidate. Indeed, he could not have gotten as far as he has were he not extraordinary. The same is true for Hillary Clinton. She could not have gotten as far as she has were she not extremely bright and highly talented. Women and men who voted for Hillary at least in part because they wanted to elect a woman to the presidency are voting honorably. (I might add here that the intelligence and skills of the two Democratic candidates are of a completely different caliber than that of John McCain, who is a mediocre talent at best, no matter how compelling his personal story.)
But somehow voting for Hillary Clinton, or John McCain, or any other white candidate, just because they are white, as voting for John McCain or Mike Huckabee or any other white male, just because they are white and male, has an element of prejudice about it. There's nothing wrong with voting for any candidate because you think they would make a good president, regardless of race or gender, but to vote for one gender or one race because you have a bias against the skin color or anatomy of the other candidate is something different.
Pat Buchanan wants to act as if we are a country with no history of racial hatred and violence. He wants to see the actions, thoughts, and history of white Americans as completely analagous to the actions, thoughts and history of black Americans and this is to completely ignore reality.
Pat knows as well as anyone that this country has a long history of discriminating against people based on the color of their skin, a history that began with white Americans owning African American slaves. Ever since then, it has been a struggle for African Americans to be treated as well as their white counterparts. First slavery had to be outlawed and the slaves emancipated, then segregation eliminated and Jim Crow laws overturned. Then voting rights had to be legally protected. The job isn't finished, however. Deep in the hearts of some people in this country, the color of one's skin determines how worthy a human being you are. This is something that cannot be overcome with laws. It can only be overcome with education and inspiration, and it has not happened yet in many areas of the country, as we have discovered in this primary season.
Those white voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in West Virginia and other Appalachian states, who said race played a role in their vote, were making a statement about their lingering attitude towards people whose skin is dark. Many of these same people would not vote for Hillary Clinton in the Fall were she the Democratic nominee, because they would actually prefer a white male like John McCain. Since they didn't have a white male candidate, they chose a white female candidate. In the lingering caste system they live by, a white male is superior to a white female, but a white female is superior to a black male.
It is different with black voters, who are far more willing to vote for the white candidate. Even the exit polls showed that far more Obama supporters said they would vote for Hillary in the Fall if she were the nominee, than Hillary supporters said they would vote for Barack. This was especially true among voters who said race played a role in their choice of candidate.
Wanting to vote for the first female nominee for president if you are a woman, or the first black nominee for president if you are African American, is understandable. There is nothing prejudiced about it. Blacks have been voting for white presidential nominees for decades and women have been voting for male candidates since 1893, but this is the first year either group has actually had an opportunity to vote for a viable candidate of their race or gender. This year blacks didn't all of a sudden become prejudiced against whites (although Obama's opponents will try to use the comments made by pastors in his former church to make the case that his supporters are "racist") or females prejudiced against males. This is simply the first year these constituencies actually had a choice other than a white male, and they felt pride in those candidates.
Certain groups of white voters, on the other hand, who voted against Obama because of his race, were doing something completely different than voting on the basis of pride in their candidate. They were voting against a candidate because they did not see him as worthy, based only on his race.
If Pat Buchanan cannnot see this, perhaps it is because he shares their prejudice.
Cohen said that this election exposed the racism that is still in this country but that has not been talked about in a long time. He cites exit polls in many Appalachian states where white voters said race had played a role in their choice of candidates, and of these a majority voted for Hillary Clinton.
Buchanan said he saw no difference between blacks in Philadelphia voting for Barack because he is black and whites in West Virginia voting for Hillary because she is white.
Cohen replied that the difference was that many whites in West Virginia were actually voting against Barack because of his race, while in Philly blacks may have been voting for Barack because of his race, but were not voting against Hillary because of either race or gender.
Pat Buchanan is not the only white commentator, nor white American, who fails to see a distinction between African American citizens voting for a fellow black American and white citizens voting for a fellow white American. They are both examples of voting for your tribe and should be seen as perfectly acceptable, according to Buchanan.
I almost don't know how to respond to this. It's one of those things that no matter how you argue it, the other side simply does not get it. But I will try.
First off, blacks have more often than not voted for white candidates, sometimes because the white candidate was better than the black candidate, sometimes because the white candidate was the only candidate. In presidential contests, there have been very few black candidates an African American could vote for. The fact that for the first time in the history of this country there is the actual possibility that an African American could become president is something extraordinary, and it seems logical to me that a majority (though not all) of African Americans would see this as a historic opportunity to elect one of their own. The large majorities of women who support Hillary Clinton feel exactly the same way about voting for a woman for the first time.
It should be said that African Americans are not voting overwhelmingly for Barack Obama just because he is black, but also because he is a gifted candidate. Indeed, he could not have gotten as far as he has were he not extraordinary. The same is true for Hillary Clinton. She could not have gotten as far as she has were she not extremely bright and highly talented. Women and men who voted for Hillary at least in part because they wanted to elect a woman to the presidency are voting honorably. (I might add here that the intelligence and skills of the two Democratic candidates are of a completely different caliber than that of John McCain, who is a mediocre talent at best, no matter how compelling his personal story.)
But somehow voting for Hillary Clinton, or John McCain, or any other white candidate, just because they are white, as voting for John McCain or Mike Huckabee or any other white male, just because they are white and male, has an element of prejudice about it. There's nothing wrong with voting for any candidate because you think they would make a good president, regardless of race or gender, but to vote for one gender or one race because you have a bias against the skin color or anatomy of the other candidate is something different.
Pat Buchanan wants to act as if we are a country with no history of racial hatred and violence. He wants to see the actions, thoughts, and history of white Americans as completely analagous to the actions, thoughts and history of black Americans and this is to completely ignore reality.
Pat knows as well as anyone that this country has a long history of discriminating against people based on the color of their skin, a history that began with white Americans owning African American slaves. Ever since then, it has been a struggle for African Americans to be treated as well as their white counterparts. First slavery had to be outlawed and the slaves emancipated, then segregation eliminated and Jim Crow laws overturned. Then voting rights had to be legally protected. The job isn't finished, however. Deep in the hearts of some people in this country, the color of one's skin determines how worthy a human being you are. This is something that cannot be overcome with laws. It can only be overcome with education and inspiration, and it has not happened yet in many areas of the country, as we have discovered in this primary season.
Those white voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in West Virginia and other Appalachian states, who said race played a role in their vote, were making a statement about their lingering attitude towards people whose skin is dark. Many of these same people would not vote for Hillary Clinton in the Fall were she the Democratic nominee, because they would actually prefer a white male like John McCain. Since they didn't have a white male candidate, they chose a white female candidate. In the lingering caste system they live by, a white male is superior to a white female, but a white female is superior to a black male.
It is different with black voters, who are far more willing to vote for the white candidate. Even the exit polls showed that far more Obama supporters said they would vote for Hillary in the Fall if she were the nominee, than Hillary supporters said they would vote for Barack. This was especially true among voters who said race played a role in their choice of candidate.
Wanting to vote for the first female nominee for president if you are a woman, or the first black nominee for president if you are African American, is understandable. There is nothing prejudiced about it. Blacks have been voting for white presidential nominees for decades and women have been voting for male candidates since 1893, but this is the first year either group has actually had an opportunity to vote for a viable candidate of their race or gender. This year blacks didn't all of a sudden become prejudiced against whites (although Obama's opponents will try to use the comments made by pastors in his former church to make the case that his supporters are "racist") or females prejudiced against males. This is simply the first year these constituencies actually had a choice other than a white male, and they felt pride in those candidates.
Certain groups of white voters, on the other hand, who voted against Obama because of his race, were doing something completely different than voting on the basis of pride in their candidate. They were voting against a candidate because they did not see him as worthy, based only on his race.
If Pat Buchanan cannnot see this, perhaps it is because he shares their prejudice.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Doing the best you can do with a bad situation
The past week has brought us an interesting juxtaposition of two voting controversies in Florida. Last Sunday we saw the HBO movie Recount, in which the events of the disputed 2000 presidential election in Florida were dramatized, and yesterday we watched as the Democratic Party's Rules and By-Laws Committee decided what to do about the votes in Florida (and Michigan) which they had disallowed last August when both states violated the authorized calender for holding primaries.
Hillary Clinton has tried to say these "disenfranchisements" of the voters in Florida in 2000 and 2008 are exactly the same, but they are not. The 2000 election, in which there were multiple problems with the vote, could have been resolved with a statewide recount. For whatever reasons, Al Gore did not ask for a total state recount, and the partial recount he did ask for was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court. This was a travesty. There was a remedy that was obvious to all, but the Republican Party sent out their staffers to act as Florida residents spontaneously protesting, and the Supreme Court decided it was more important to put Bush into office than allow the protests and the recount to continue.
The problems in the 2008 primaries in Florida and Michigan were numerous, and only one resembled the situation with Florida in 2000. First of all, the voters of Florida and Michigan were told months ahead of time that their votes would not count because their states had decided to hold their primaries before Super Tuesday. After a long process of contemplating what states should go first, the DNC had decided to let four states go before all the others (an imperfect system, certainly, but necessary in order to create an orderly process). Florida and Michigan were not among the four, but scheduled their primary early anyway. This was nothing like Florida in 2000, which first of all was a general election and not a primary, and secondly was a dispute about who really won a very close election where there were multiple problems with voter rolls and ballots.
The one way in which Florida in 2000 resembled Florida and Michigan in 2008 was not a way that provided an advantageous argument to Senator Clinton. In Florida in 2000 many people had been taken off the voting rolls because Katherine Harris had hired a company to eliminate people whose names resembled those of felons in the state. Hundreds of thousands of people may have been mistakenly turned away at the polls because of this and been unable to vote. In Florida and Michigan, hundreds of thousands may also not have voted, primarily because they believed the election would not count anyway.
When Florida and Michigan went ahead awith their unauthorized primaries, many voters stayed home as they believed their vote would not count. So the final vote count could not have been a true reflection of the will of the people. It was only a true reflection of those who chose to go to the polls. Senator Clinton wanted us to believe that the vote in Florida and Michigan in 2008 was a true reflection of the will of the people, when in fact it was not. Trying to discern what that will was would have been impossible, just as impossible as going back and reinstating all those Floridians wrongfully disenfranchised in 2000 and allowing them to vote after the fact.
Nevertheless, the other problems in Florida in 2000 could have been remedied with a recount, which was never allowed. There was no similar remedy in Florida and Michigan in 2008, unless there had been new elections which were costly and logistically problematic, and so the states both decided against them.
This meant that if Florida and Michigan wanted their votes to count, they would have to appeal to the Rules and By-Laws Committee, which they did. Last Saturday at the hearing, the committee members had a tough job. First they had to decide if they should give back the votes they had stripped from Florida and Michigan, and then they had to decide if the vote that was recorded was a true reflection of the will of the people, especially when many people in those states didn't vote because they believed the vote would not count.
In both cases, the committee decided to give back half of the votes, a compromise to honor those who voted and still exact a penalty so in future elections states would honor the dates authorized by the Party. With Florida, the votes were awarded as the people voted, even though this could not have been a fair reflection of the will of all the voters. This was a concession by the Obama campaign.
Michigan, however, was a different story, in that most of the candidates had taken their names off the ballot, and of the final contenders, only Senator Clinton's name remained. There was a category for "uncommitted," however, which complicated things.
There was a big difference of opinion on the committee about how to deal with Michigan and its uncommitted votes. Ultimately, the decision was made to accept the compromise worked out by the Michigan Democratic Party which awarded Obama all of the uncommitted delegates plus four more, largely because write-in votes for him had been disallowed and because exit polls showed that most of those who voted "uncommitted" as well as some who voted for Clinton actually preferred Obama.
Obviously, this was an imperfect decision, as all compromises are. Had the committee done what Senator Clinton wanted, to not award any delegates to Obama, it would have been even more imperfect.
Harold Ickes, a Clinton supporter and advisor to her campaign, and a member of the committee, went ballistic. He insisted this decision was not a true reflection of the will of the voters, and threatened to appeal the decision. He threw around the word "ass" a lot, and fired up Clinton supporters in the audience who began shouting "McCain" and "Denver," as in "we'll vote for McCain rather than Obama," and "we'll take this to the convention in Denver."
I understand the disappointment of the Clinton people, including Ickes, but this is such a unique situation that I don't think there was any solution that could have satisfied both campaigns and the voters of both states. What Ickes doesn't want to acknowledge is that the starting point was that neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama were going to get any votes from those states when the day started yesterday. By the end of the day, both states were given half their delegates back, and Clinton got more delegates than Obama. There was absolutely no way to know how those states would have voted if their votes had counted from day one, and no way to know how many stayed home that day because they believed their votes wouldn't count. There was also no way to know how many of Obama's supporters in Michigan stayed home not just because the vote wouldn't count, but because their candidate's name wasn't even on the ballot.
So the Rules committee accepted a compromise which the members could live with. If Harold Ickes cannot live with the compromise, it's because he's a fierce Hillary supporter who didn't get what he wanted.
As some commentators were saying yesterday, this ruling proves that the Clintons no longer control the Democratic Party. Let's hope what the ruling does mean is that compromise, rationality, and a spirit of unity are what controls the Democratic Party. And let's hope further that Senator and President Clinton adopt that spirit as well and do the right thing this week when Senator Obama wins the number of votes needed to be the nominee.
Hillary Clinton has tried to say these "disenfranchisements" of the voters in Florida in 2000 and 2008 are exactly the same, but they are not. The 2000 election, in which there were multiple problems with the vote, could have been resolved with a statewide recount. For whatever reasons, Al Gore did not ask for a total state recount, and the partial recount he did ask for was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court. This was a travesty. There was a remedy that was obvious to all, but the Republican Party sent out their staffers to act as Florida residents spontaneously protesting, and the Supreme Court decided it was more important to put Bush into office than allow the protests and the recount to continue.
The problems in the 2008 primaries in Florida and Michigan were numerous, and only one resembled the situation with Florida in 2000. First of all, the voters of Florida and Michigan were told months ahead of time that their votes would not count because their states had decided to hold their primaries before Super Tuesday. After a long process of contemplating what states should go first, the DNC had decided to let four states go before all the others (an imperfect system, certainly, but necessary in order to create an orderly process). Florida and Michigan were not among the four, but scheduled their primary early anyway. This was nothing like Florida in 2000, which first of all was a general election and not a primary, and secondly was a dispute about who really won a very close election where there were multiple problems with voter rolls and ballots.
The one way in which Florida in 2000 resembled Florida and Michigan in 2008 was not a way that provided an advantageous argument to Senator Clinton. In Florida in 2000 many people had been taken off the voting rolls because Katherine Harris had hired a company to eliminate people whose names resembled those of felons in the state. Hundreds of thousands of people may have been mistakenly turned away at the polls because of this and been unable to vote. In Florida and Michigan, hundreds of thousands may also not have voted, primarily because they believed the election would not count anyway.
When Florida and Michigan went ahead awith their unauthorized primaries, many voters stayed home as they believed their vote would not count. So the final vote count could not have been a true reflection of the will of the people. It was only a true reflection of those who chose to go to the polls. Senator Clinton wanted us to believe that the vote in Florida and Michigan in 2008 was a true reflection of the will of the people, when in fact it was not. Trying to discern what that will was would have been impossible, just as impossible as going back and reinstating all those Floridians wrongfully disenfranchised in 2000 and allowing them to vote after the fact.
Nevertheless, the other problems in Florida in 2000 could have been remedied with a recount, which was never allowed. There was no similar remedy in Florida and Michigan in 2008, unless there had been new elections which were costly and logistically problematic, and so the states both decided against them.
This meant that if Florida and Michigan wanted their votes to count, they would have to appeal to the Rules and By-Laws Committee, which they did. Last Saturday at the hearing, the committee members had a tough job. First they had to decide if they should give back the votes they had stripped from Florida and Michigan, and then they had to decide if the vote that was recorded was a true reflection of the will of the people, especially when many people in those states didn't vote because they believed the vote would not count.
In both cases, the committee decided to give back half of the votes, a compromise to honor those who voted and still exact a penalty so in future elections states would honor the dates authorized by the Party. With Florida, the votes were awarded as the people voted, even though this could not have been a fair reflection of the will of all the voters. This was a concession by the Obama campaign.
Michigan, however, was a different story, in that most of the candidates had taken their names off the ballot, and of the final contenders, only Senator Clinton's name remained. There was a category for "uncommitted," however, which complicated things.
There was a big difference of opinion on the committee about how to deal with Michigan and its uncommitted votes. Ultimately, the decision was made to accept the compromise worked out by the Michigan Democratic Party which awarded Obama all of the uncommitted delegates plus four more, largely because write-in votes for him had been disallowed and because exit polls showed that most of those who voted "uncommitted" as well as some who voted for Clinton actually preferred Obama.
Obviously, this was an imperfect decision, as all compromises are. Had the committee done what Senator Clinton wanted, to not award any delegates to Obama, it would have been even more imperfect.
Harold Ickes, a Clinton supporter and advisor to her campaign, and a member of the committee, went ballistic. He insisted this decision was not a true reflection of the will of the voters, and threatened to appeal the decision. He threw around the word "ass" a lot, and fired up Clinton supporters in the audience who began shouting "McCain" and "Denver," as in "we'll vote for McCain rather than Obama," and "we'll take this to the convention in Denver."
I understand the disappointment of the Clinton people, including Ickes, but this is such a unique situation that I don't think there was any solution that could have satisfied both campaigns and the voters of both states. What Ickes doesn't want to acknowledge is that the starting point was that neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama were going to get any votes from those states when the day started yesterday. By the end of the day, both states were given half their delegates back, and Clinton got more delegates than Obama. There was absolutely no way to know how those states would have voted if their votes had counted from day one, and no way to know how many stayed home that day because they believed their votes wouldn't count. There was also no way to know how many of Obama's supporters in Michigan stayed home not just because the vote wouldn't count, but because their candidate's name wasn't even on the ballot.
So the Rules committee accepted a compromise which the members could live with. If Harold Ickes cannot live with the compromise, it's because he's a fierce Hillary supporter who didn't get what he wanted.
As some commentators were saying yesterday, this ruling proves that the Clintons no longer control the Democratic Party. Let's hope what the ruling does mean is that compromise, rationality, and a spirit of unity are what controls the Democratic Party. And let's hope further that Senator and President Clinton adopt that spirit as well and do the right thing this week when Senator Obama wins the number of votes needed to be the nominee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)