-
This stuff is not good for the Democratic party, it’s just not
(18)I know a lot of you all reading here think I’m in the tank for Hillary Clinton, and it’s true that I prefer Hillary on the issues (Obama has apparently made it a policy not to have policies). But —
Throughout this long campaign the Clintons have been turned into a vile caricature: amoral, power-mad narcissists who are not beyond using racism and even worries about Obama’s safety to press their political cause. I’ve criticized both Clintons repeatedly in the pages of Salon for over 10 years, but it’s really time to say: Enough.
For several months I’ve found myself bothered by a double standard in both the behavior and the media coverage of the Obama campaign, as supposedly representing a new kind of clean, post-partisan politics, by contrast with the dirty old win-at-any-cost Clintons. Hardball Obama campaign tactics — David Axelrod partly blaming Clinton for Benazir Bhutto’s death; the intimidation of Clinton voters by a pro-Obama union in Nevada (to be fair, some Obama supporters claimed intimidation by Clinton forces, too); the campaign’s infamous South Carolina race memo (prepared before Bill Clinton made his dumb Jesse Jackson remark); the multiple “Harry and Louise” mailers distorting Clinton’s healthcare proposal; not to mention ties between Obama, Axelrod and the Exelon Corp., even as Obama is touting his lobbyist-free campaign. Nothing seems to stick to Obama; he’s Teflon.
This episode was worse than many but not entirely atypical: After his staff helped whip up a frenzy about Clinton’s remarks, Obama himself said he accepted Clinton’s statement that she had been misunderstood, and Axelrod tried to act gracious and insist that it’s time to move on. But the damage had been done. Obama has run a better campaign than Clinton, there’s no doubt about it, but he’s had a lot of help from a fawning media. (Here’s a great piece making a point I made months ago about how such coverage may ultimately hurt Obama.)*
*Hint: backlash.
And then read Redstar. I’m not sure that I agree with everything she says here, but I have come to respect her intellectual integrity and she makes me think we might all need to step back and take a deep breath (emphasis added):
Part of the reason for last night’s insomnia has been my growing frustration from the Clinton RFK remarks skirmish. It began in earnest when I read Kevin’s response at Slant Truth, in which he stated that regardless of her intent, it was his personal associations of the assassinations of black leaders that mattered to him. He added that he was further troubled by the racially segregated – and polarized – link networks he was seeing in response to her comments; i.e., whites were linking to other whites in support of their perspectives, and bloggers of color – including many African-Americans – were linking to one another in opinion solidarity. When I read this, I thought Duh! Obviously. Anyone following this election, especially since early ‘08, has seen this cultural fracturing around the blogosphere, as we all interpret the candidates’ actions, statements and alleged motivations and intent based on our personal and/or collective experiences and identities.
Then I read a compelling analysis from Latoya at Racialicious, which I found to be strongly undermined by her strident vocabulary that “hell no…there is no way Hillary was talking about herself when referencing the RFK campaign.” Latoya’s voice is one I really respect in the ’sphere, yet so is Pocochina’s, who just as convincingly argues that of course Clinton is thinking of herself in referencing RFK, because it’s a) a defining (generational) moment for her in her political development, b) she faces her own threats of assassination, and c) and this is my elaboration of Pocochina’s point – that she has arguably come to represent for millions of moderate- to low-income Americans (mostly white, but not exclusively) the underdog candidate fighting for them. Just because this vision of her is routinely derided in many pundit circles does not mean that it does not ring true for countless Clinton supporters (if those I read on-line are any indication).
So who’s right, here? Who’s interpretation is valid? Hopefully you realize these are trick questions – obviously all of them are, as they are grounded in experience, identity, and each blogger’s situated knowledge. …
I remember last fall at the Congressional Black Caucus Conference wearing a Clinton pin and an Obama button. I remember my cynical detachment about the two of them, centrists not remotely interested in challenging the status quo other than via their own historic candidacies and the legitimately new perspectives they would bring to the Oval Office: the first serious female contender with her gendered and generational whiteness, modern marriage and professional career working with women and children, and the first multi-racial, cosmopolitan, almost-not-a-Baby-Boomer, black-middle-class Presidential candidate. Yet, as the months have passed since Iowa, I’m getting more and more narrow-minded in my support of Clinton, mainly in response to her unparalleled opposition. My emotionalism is seriously challenging my more “rational” preferences for her policy positions, campaign platform and professional experience.
…
What I think has been the real issue in this campaign – in the politics waged from both sides that have employed or capitalized on systemic sexism and racism – is that both campaign[s] have condescended to the other. …
All of this is getting to my long-drawn-out conclusion: that for most of us this primary has ceased to be about the two candidates, and all about ourselves – in all our complicated beauty. Which of our multiple identities is elevated consciously or otherwise in feeling drawn to the candidates, what our biases or privileges really are, what our core personal networks really look like, what we feel we’re owed by society personally or collectively, and what we’re projecting onto these two figureheads who are similar triangulating centrists – one with most of her dirty laundry exposed, and the other with his soon to come out to dry.
I feel like I’ve lost a lot of virtual allies in this primary (hopefully temporarily), but gained a plethora of new ones. At my old blog I wrote I how I tended to identify with middle- and moderate-income white ethnics and women and men of color I meet because our life experiences are often quite similar. Who I have met in numbers on-line via supporting Clinton are many new young outspoken working-class and middle-class Asian-American and white ethnic feminists. I have purged many middle-class and upper-middle-class mostly white male and female bloggers who I felt marginally about to begin with. Good riddance. They don’t speak for me. I’m not sure who does these days…
And from the Online Etymology Dictionary, tribe:
from O.Fr. tribu, from L. tribus “one of the three political/ethnic divisions of the original Roman state” (Tites, Ramnes, and Luceres, corresponding, perhaps, to the Latins, Sabines, and Etruscans), later, one of the 30 political divisions instituted by Servius Tullius (increased to 35 in 241 B.C.E.), perhaps from tri- “three” + *bhu-, root of the verb be.
We are dividing ever more strongly into our tribes in this country. It’s dangerous.
Possibly related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
18 Responses to “This stuff is not good for the Democratic party, it’s just not”
-
deane laczi May 29th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Same here- (Brava!)
-
Yes, we are becoming divided. And it’s not just Hillary Clinton’s fault. She has to take responsibility for her portion — but her portion is not all of it, nor even most of it. Obama is accountable for this division, especially in destroying Bill Clinton’s approval ratings among black Americans. I think it’s really insulting that he expects Bill Clinton to help him heal the divide that he caused, while blaming Hillary. Not to mention the whole can of worms involved in reaching out to Bill, not Hillary.
-
We Democrats better get it together. Big trouble is brewing.
http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/john-timothy-griffin/
He could always reconsider. -
sherry May 29th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Tommy, I think you must be referring to this
Time magazineLondon Times article. It is offensive on so many levels that I couldn’t finish reading it. However, the attribution to unnamed “Senior officials on Obama’s campaign” make me wonder if the whole article isn’t so much moonshine. I hope so anyway. -
sherry May 29th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Helen, your post goes to what I was saying to Mike on another thread — voter ID laws and such tend to suppress a particular demographic: the poor, the black, and the elderly. They benefit those who are white and privileged. This is an issue we on the left should be fighting. I am not all that impressed with either of our candidates on social justics issues.
-
I couldn’t get the link to work to read the article you’re referencing in comment #4, Sherry. And, FWIW, it looks like a London Times piece, not Time Magazine.
-
sherry May 29th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Oops, JimT. Obviously it made me so mad I couldn’t see straight. Fixed the link and the attribution. More than ever convinced that it’s moonshine now.
-
koshembos May 29th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
One of the reasons we, the country, are in so much trouble now and it seems in the foreseeable future is the total inability of our intellectuals to read and refer to what is going on. I believe that top journalist should be entitled to be called intellectual.
When one reads Joan Walsh one cannot but gasp at her comments. First, she says “Clintons have been turned into a vile caricature.” That’s totally wrong. When you are called a whore, a monster, savage and then equated with Nazis (the Banality of Evil in Kos) you are outcast, don’t meet basic human standards, potentially a war criminal. Sorry Joan, caricature is funny and your statement is way off the mark.
“I’ve criticized both Clintons repeatedly in the pages of Salon for over 10 years.” The last 8 years we have a president called Bush, are you proud of being busy (i.e. repeatedly) with Bill and Hillary. To me this sounds shocking. Actually Ms. Walsh wants to gain credibility, i.e. even handedness, by showing off her attacks on the Clintons. If she has credibility already, why make such a clumsy effort, if she isn’t credible, this effort will drag her down further.
The last point I want to raise (to avoid kicking a dead horse), is the statement: “For several months I’ve found myself bothered by a double standard in both the behavior and the media coverage of the Obama campaign.” Bothered? When a candidate raises the specter of racism about people that have proved through hard work that they abhor racism. When a candidate creates a new racism: hate for white uneducated people. The fact that all this is accepted as a merit and all that can be said is: I am bothered. How about disgusted, alarmed, flabbergasted, upset to no end?
-
Well John McCain ain’t exactally lighting America up. Of course the SBC is clinging to each of his words. I believe the Dem’s have a little wiggle room, since the Republicans (Scott McClellan) are eating their own. I guess each side is having their own fist fights. Perhaps Hillary could pull out, start her own party!
-
Love this quote:
“Anyone following this election, especially since early ‘08, has seen this cultural fracturing around the blogosphere, as we all interpret the candidates’ actions, statements and alleged motivations and intent based on our personal and/or collective experiences and identities.”
So much defining of what we accept as news, valid sources, and damning evidence of the “other” candidate’s pure evil can be traced back to what we see of ourselves in the candidate we support. Things have been nasty. I do think it is time to cease-fire. It’s like the small town I grew up in, of about 500 people, which had 100 of a certain denomination, and four different churches within a mile of each other of this denomination. I would love to engage in an honest conversation, airing-out of the differences, because I have followed this blog for a long time, but I hesitate even to post that I am an Obama supporter because people are so angry. On both sides. Who in the world does that benefit?
Kosh, I don’t know you, but I have to ask you about this quote:
When a candidate raises the specter of racism about people that have proved through hard work that they abhor racism. When a candidate creates a new racism: hate for white uneducated people.
I’m not sure I’m hearing the same things you are, and this comes to the point that I think the article was saying. I could list a number of things that Obama supporters find equally appalling. I’m really not trying to pick a fight, just pointing out that people of good conscience can disagree on a candidate, and although there’s been no shortage of bare-knuckling in this fight, we ought to know when to pull in the dogs, or the daggers, or whatever non-offensive term for aggressive tactics. I talk to a lot of people on both sides, and they are dangerously close to a complete loss of perspective due to a personal sense of offense and loss.
-
sherry May 30th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Jack! Surely you don’t feel afraid to speak your mind on this blog? I have serious issues with Barack Obama that are policy issues and I have issues with the way he’s run his campaign. I’ve aired those issues here because very few others are doing so. But I don’t think I’ve ever indulged in or tolerated hate speech. Some venting. But venting is healthy.
Anyway, you’re here and speaking up now, and you’re welcome.
Commenters: Jack is my friend. Please couch any discussion with him in courteous terms and provide documentation for assertions.
-
sherry May 30th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Addendum to my comment to Jack. I am actually very grateful that Jack, and JimT, and Helen, who often chides me for going too far, stick with me and read and comment here. It’s a sign that we value one another as human beings and artists above the temporary loyalties of a political campaign. We have roots together. As I have long roots with Max and Georgia and Larry Webster.
When I said we were withdrawing too much into our tribes, I was actually thinking beyond voting blocks to our society at large. Opulent whites are withdrawing into gated communities, middle-class African Americans are re-segregating also, and poor blacks never got unsegregated, the well clan up against the sick, evangelicals cleave to evangelicals, intellectuals to intellectuals. Check out The Big Sort. We are unmelting the pot.
To do a sort of nonsequiter, this trend is one of the reasons I am so concerned about the ruin of the public school system.
Back when my twins were getting ready to enter school, as a mother convinced of the need to nurture their budding genius, I was ready to consider sending them to a private school, even though we didn’t really have two pennies to rub together. My husband, who is often my moral compass when I go sailing off into the wild blue, said, no, they should go to public school because, as much as they needed intellectual education, they also needed to learn to understand and deal with all kinds of people. I saw the wisdom of that, because I really am a democrat, and I have not regretted it. My sons have grown up open-minded and tolerant.
We are not teaching our children tolerance any more. We’re teaching them distrust of the other. (See, I always come back to my themes.)
If this is the consequence of “winning” the cold war, that we all turn in to some version of an Ayn Rand hero, evey human for self, then I think we have lost profoundly.
And we all need to remember that there are a lot of people out there with big mouths and tiny brains who don’t give a sh1t about the average working citizen but only about blog hits, ratings, and money.
-
Jack ….. Stick around and comment. Your comment’s and thoughts are valued. You won’t be attacked by me.
-
sherry May 30th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Max, Gore Vidal, a novelist of note but an iffy talker who likes to shock people as much as Larry Webster does but who has a larger microphone, gets it right about one thing at least. He is wont to say that the U.S. has only one party, business, with two branches. Much about this primary seems to prove him right.
-
Jack, That’s why I watch NASCAR on weekends. Nothing could be further from my actual life. I need grounding and perspective. The USA will continue no matter who wins in November. And what’s more most of us will eat. And drive our cars.
-
The USA will continue no matter who wins in November. And what’s more most of us will eat. And drive our cars.
Helen, No truer statement has been spoken. As guilty as I have been from time to time, as many have been, I still find it amazing how two people, who outside of politics, are almost identical in their day to day thinking, can spew so much vitriol over an election process.
WOW, if that wasn’t a run-on sentence!! My English Prof would be so proud! -
sherry May 30th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“We must love one another or die” says W. H. Auden. And so let us love one another. But while I must continue to drive my car, I won’t drive it nearly as much at $4.00 for a gallon of gas. I do think we have some big changes coming, willy nilly, and I do think it makes a difference who our leader is. And I do think, once that leader is chosen, we need to hold that her or him accountable, as a people.
Mike I love long sentences. You’ll find quite a few of them in my writing. Poets and English teachers aren’t always on the same wavelength.
-
Thanks, Sherry. I’m honored to be your friend and to know your son.
Thanks, you all. I’m as adverse to confrontation as anyone, but just wanted to speak my mind in a place where I like to be.
In response to your addendum, Sherry, I think you’re dead-on. I should let you know I’m working on a piece calling for unity not just in the democratic party or in the US, but just everywhere. I agree. Too much tribalism everywhere. I’ve seen it in the U.K.’s most “civilised” town, some English thugs looking to slap around a Bangladeshi waiter, and in Korea, where I got slapped around for walking a woman home from work (and then got rescued by an older Korean woman from what was becoming a gathering crowd), but it bothers me more when I see it here.
And, man-o-man, are multinational corporations more our enemy than anyone we know face-to-face. They’d love nothing more than for people, especially the “little” people, to face off against each other. I’m convinced that the whole idea of the right’s “culture war” was/is to sell books (which it has done prodigiously) and to make ratings(which it has).
I’m off to drive a car cross country. Looking forward to posting more, now that school has ended.
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments