Careful, Obama. Humorless Feminists Are Watching
| Thu Mar. 20, 2008 1:57 PM PDT
Now that we're all catching our breath after l'affaire Wright, it's not surprising that those at the center are still freaked out. Obama is too.
As Obama told CNN's Anderson Cooper this week: "In some ways, this controversy has actually shaken me up a little bit and gotten me back into remembering that the odds of me getting elected have always been lower than some of the other conventional candidates."
Uh oh. There are at least three ways to take this, all of which make my spidey sense tingly.
1) This is just another refreshing burst of honesty and humanity from the plaster saint all candidates are required to be, Transcendo-boy most of all. Thank God he didn't tear up, though that would have only endeared him to us more.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
2) Or it could be a rueful admission that he, too, had become a tad over-confident, mentally re-adjusting the height of the Oval Office Aeron rather than wooing Superdelegates diligently enough. Hence the manly slap on his own wrist and cautionary tale against vainglory.
3) Last, it's possible that the day after riveting the nation with a truly beautiful, transcendent speech about race he's now playing the race card, albeit weakly, and following it up with a male privilege chaser.
Had he stopped at, "...the odds of me getting elected have always been low," it wouldn't have caught the eye. But, lemme see, what is it that sets him apart from the "conventional candidates?" And, by the way, since when is Hillary a conventional candidate? Were he only facing white men, OK. But with a woman in the race—how dare he?
Here's the flip side of the black feminist complaint that black women are either forced to choose between the two identities politically—or more typically, just have their preferences assumed to coincide with those of black men (See: Clarence Thomas) on pain of ex-communication. With this bit of rhetoric, Hillary's being forced to be white over female even while she faces non-stop sexism. Why? Because that works best for the black male candidate. Hence, my belief that we're farther along on race than we are on gender; however much racism black men face, they have in common with the worst racial troglodyte the preservation of male privilege.
I've spent the last few days doing non-stop media about Obama, forced to finally give him his props for handling everything from Ferraro to Wright brilliantly, honestly, humanely, and with a minimum of political calculation. I'd been playing hard to get, loathe to swoon over this political Moon Doggie who simply couldn't be all that, and torn by my unquenchable font of feminist fury. But I finally had to give in to my admiration for him; his insistence that Ferraro may not be very articulate but is not a racist, and his treatment of the Wright flap as the legitimate issue that it is, rather than hiding behind either religious privilege or black intransigence, are both simply irresistible.
So, his "conventional candidates" remark surprised me all the more, by sounding like fake grief, a tear-stained hanky in a fisted glove. Like a reminder that he is, all of a sudden, black and therefore downtrodden, when yesterday he was merely Every Man, albeit with a crazy uncle on the loose. (And who doesn't have one of those?)
Obama's comment is a far cry from anything approximating the kind of race-baiting America is used to, but it's pretty typical of the low-level sexism, and male privilege, many of us thought Obama was above. Just 'cause it's subtle don't mean it ain't there. Were I Clinton, I'd damn sure be making this point.
I'm tired of being watchful of public figures I'd like to take the easy way out and admire. The Clintons woke up this sleeping dog with their ham-fisted race baiting up to and including South Carolina; I'm not sure they can soothe me, and all the other formerly loyalist (my bad, "conventional") Dems back to sleep. Now Obama's got me all watchful for more male privilege coming from the quarter I thought least likely to harbor it. The Clintons have taught me well to get suspicious early and stay that way, but it's exhausting.
Of the myriad things I loved about Obama's speech (and gave him much public love for at the expense of my much needed beauty rest) was its insistence that the travails of each historically oppressed or disadvantaged group be respected and alleviated as much as possible—not used to your own advantage.
Practice what you preach, Senator. We humorless feminists are watching.
Comments
After reading the rest of the dialect between Obama and Cooper on CNN's post, I have to disagree with Ms Dickerson. While I respect her caution and watchfulness, I think that Obama was referring to "other conventional candidates" as reflected by the *conventional* politics being played out in their campaigns. He follows his statement with this paragraph:
"If I was just running the textbook campaign -- doing the conventional thing -- I probably wasn't going to win because Sen. [Hillary] Clinton was going to be much more capable of doing that than I would be? We had tremendous success, and I think we were starting to get a little comfortable and conventional right before Texas and Ohio."
It's possible that he caught himself and used that next paragraph to camouflage his comments, but it doesn't strike me that way. I think instead that he was trying to point out that (considering the context) Clinton - as a conventional candidate - would not have taken the risky chance to stand up and make the speech and tackle issues that Obama has.
Sixty years ago, my high school science teacher warned on the first day of class: "I will never fail you for giving me the wrong answer. I will, however, fail you for accepting the wrong question." I didn't understand him then, but after six decades in the school of hard knocks I reluctantly admit the wisdom of his words. In these critical times, it looks as if Americans have accepted the wrong question?the question of race in the United States.
Senator Barack Obama is right. To focus on race in this country is a distraction from crucial issues of survival at home and abroad. But Senator Obama is also wrong. In these times he can best serve all Americans as a preacher, not a president.
To embark on a "national debate" on race now is to distract from crucial issues affecting all Americans black and white alike: a fast-sinking economy, sickening banking and health care systems, a home mortgage meltdown, and preemptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq draining blood and treasure, and global warming, to name but a few. To avert our eyes now will assure that all Americans, regardless of race, will go down with the same ship to drown in a colorblind sea.
How many of the candidates are poor? None. They are all wealthy. Let's get passed who is female, who is black, who is old, who is left or who is right. These "differences" - gender, ethnicity/race, nationality, religion, age, sexuality, etc. ? are merely ways to "divide" people for the purpose of keeping the wealthy elite rich and powerful. The rich (all 3% of them) got us fighting each other (all 97% of us) while they continue their greedy quest to own and control everything.
March 21, 2008
Freelance Writer
Pensacola, Florida
leonwalker@cox.net
"Like A Storm"
I am amazed at what I have seen among young voters in this country. I am equally amazed that this is being ignored or overlooked in the media in favor of such nonsence as passports and preachers. These snacks of political mischief that our media continues to serve us. Something I like to call "the devil's hor dourvers". Of all of the political stories of this campaign season, the story of America's youth activism and participation is both pridefully awe inspiring and historically significant.
The other day I was watching a live news report from the campus of a small college in North Carolina as I lay in bed. At that moment I felt as if I was actually watching a Saturday pregame sports rally. As a backdrop for the news commentators, there were several hundred excited students with signs, cheering in support of Senator Barack Obama and anticipating his forthcoming speech on their campus. Now get this? It was 11:57 PM here in the Panhandle of Florida where I was resting comfortably. Meaning of course, that it was nearly 1:00 AM in North Carolina! Let me say this a different way. When a bunch of college kids are hanging out at 1:00 AM awaiting a political rally I find that striking. They were not at home studying, or partying or surfing the internet. They were organinizing and participating politically! Perhaps this is not particularly significant to you. So let me delicately suggest that? "you start paying attention".
The scene I have just describeded is being played out over and over again on hundreds of campuses throughout the country. Millions of America's youth are actively participating and their votes and voices are having a tremendous impact. Say what you like about Generation X but what I know is, that they are a very bright and well educated generation of young people. More importantly, they are also extremely comfortable with their idenfifications and associations across social and ethnic landscapes. Two simple examples of this is truth, are music and their many multi-cultural and multi-racial friends, classmates and associates. This generation of young voters is far more comfortable with each other as people in general, as individuals, rather than members of any group. This is an aspect of their blended reality that is more significant than any prior generation in the history of this country.
Generation "X" is seemingly embracing Senator Obama because they not only believe in his message of change and his qualifications. They are not only embracing him because they agree with his political views and in particular, his pledge to end the war in Iraq. They are "also" embracing and supporting him because he "represents" and "looks like" them, and so many others among their friends, peers and intellectual and artistic icons.
Generation "X" is a mixture of "Americana" that we have not inspected and appreciated for its social intrigue. Nor for its mystical model of future generations. Generation "X" is what what America is becoming and what America was intended, if not destined to become.
At fifty four years old this whole "Obama" story is just phenomanal for me. However, this amazing story that is Senator Obama's life, is not nearly as surprising for my niece who is a twenty year old "Junior" in college. Many of her close friends, classmates and associates are from international families, blended families, divorced families and from both challenged and affluent pasts. She herself, has a father who is African (born and raised in Gambia) who is an engineer, educated in the United States. Her mother (my sister) and our family are African Americans.
We Americans see things from many different perspectives and that is among the many wonderful things that make life in this country both enjoyable and challenging. It makes being an American special and wonderful in a variety of ways. That is also why is is so important to take note of what so many of our young people are currently engaged in politically. Their votes and voices and activism are sending a resounding message that deserves much more consideration. Not only should we be more loudly applauding their participation, we should be absorbing a very significant message. We should be observing the example of these youth. Our children and young family members are teaching us a lesson. They are demonstrating to America what America really is. They are "walking the American walk" in a way that is not affected or contrived. Why? Because the live in a technological world that is colorful and colorless. They do not carry around old scars of political or social ideology as inescapable baggage. Why? Because they have information, education and experiences that are new and very different. Different from those of the average (I dare not say "typical") American of twenty or thirty years ago or beyond.
Generation "X" is having an incredible impact on this policical contest and they are a voting block that may well make the difference. This is to say nothing of the fact that they have influence. Influence on their parents and family members in encouraging their participation and swaying them to their way of thinking. It is a pretty powerful thing when your child invites you to have an adult discussion (about anything) and requests your support.
I am so very proud of America's youth and what I have been priveliged to see them so intensely engaged in this political season. This is a historic story that I will continue to tell for years to come. I would like nothing more than to see this contest for the Democratic Party nomination end as soon as possible. In the meantime, I am focusing my attention not on the moldy media snacks, but on the "Obama" youth support movement.
I don't care if you are a democrat or republican or independent. I don't care what your views on any particular candidate or issues are. You might want to just take a momement to look over your shoulder and observe and what our young people are doing.
They are gathering like a storm.
L. A. Walker
© Leon A. Walker, March 2008
Leon A. Walker
March 23, 2008
Freelance Writer
Pensacola, Florida
leonwalker@cox.net
"Watch What They Do"
A Simplistic Discussion About Race
I referred to myself in a previous column as a "Lifelong Democrat". For the most part that is accurate, but the truth is when I was in the military decades ago I voted for Ronald Regan. I do have a very good, however selfish excuse though. He was touting the development of a six hundred ship Navy and promising a very large pay raise. Regan made good on his promise. I never told anyone I voted for him and frankly it still makes me uncomfortable. But hey, I needed the money.
It is interesting that in my reflecting on that part of my life there was another striking ambiguity with regard to race. But first let me begin by sharing that I began my "unofficial" undergraduate studies on "race" began while attending two predominantly White Catholic Schools growing up. In my nearly exclusively Black neighborhood we referred to people only as Black or White and we had a single derogatory word that we used in reference to each race. I'm guessing I would have been in about fourth of fifth grade when I began to learn that there were actually many other ethnically specific derogatory tags. There were numerous ethnicities represented in my schools. Italians, Irishmen, Poles, Hispanics, Germans and a number of other eastern and central Europeans. Along with a few Blacks. All I will say further about this is that in Catholic School I learned an equal measure about both the godly and the ungodly.
In earned my "unofficial" graduate credential on "race" in our United States Navy. I have to say that it was an absolutely bizarre blessing. Not only were all of the aforementioned ethnic groups again represented they were my friends and brethren in a trail mix of Americana that I still periodically reflect upon and savor. I spent twenty years and twenty minutes in the Navy and I was fortunate to spend the first half of my career as an enlisted guy. As a young sailor I lived in a world where the sanctity and pride in the team or unit transcended all else. Make no mistake, the things we said among "just us" were light years beyond today's universe of propriety. We casually used ethnically specific words and phrases that could only be described as ghastly! So much so, that if I related some of them today it would be shocking and scarcely believable. The interesting thing about this was that then, and today it has never mattered. Except to say that through it all, and experiences beyond, I learned to see the soul of a man. I know this because at sea and in combat, in bar fights and bench clearing brawls and at weddings and funerals, we were always one. For all of the potential faults, these experiences broadened my racial field of vision. My associations of today are appropriately reflective and I am eternally grateful for that.
I have a thorough grasp of the concepts of respect and propriety and the many other important even grave aspects of life. I know something about war first hand. I have many times seen, and I understand both death and danger. I know the difference between words and works. I understand that there can be a "huge" difference between immaturity, ignorance and insensitivity versus racism or hate.
I am fortunate to have never lived in a veritable "ethnic bubble" and I know quite a bit about people. The one common factor is that they are not perfect. I am compelled to make it clear that I do not condone or encourage hurtful or even insensitive "words" between people and I do not allow myself to be verbally victimized. But neither do I habitually or spontaneously leap forth to stand in judgment without invitation or good reason. Why? Because I do not always pretend to know from whence such comments come, nor how they are intended in full content and context. I could not possibly understand what impulses, experiences and thoughts inspire words within another person. More importantly, experience has taught me that words however seemingly insensitive or misguided are not always the measure of the heart and soul within. Things are not always the way they seem.
I have been listening and reading the media pundits about the importance of and the projected outcomes of the forthcoming Pennsylvania Primary Election. I am saddened and embarrassed and even angered by the characterizations of this "blue collar" voting block that is supposedly so closed minded, myopic and rigid. Essentially what is being reported is that they are and will vote (nearly exclusively) for Senator Clinton and attaching a subtle racial subtext. That is a horrible sweeping generalization that is a media abomination. Just one more high tech poison pen letter. I will not elaborate on the many others of late. The influence of media in America continues to cultivate dangerous seeds across a broad spectrum of topics. "There are both benefits and hazards with regard to freedoms of speech and expression." This point I am making has nothing to do with votes cast or those to be cast. I view this as a good example, given the contest spread at particularly at this late, if not hopeless juncture. Such reporting is a prediction and statement of the very thing we claim to abhor as the question of race has surfaced nationally. They, (the media) are making Pennsylvania out to be America's intellectual doldrums and a veritable toilet of intolerance. If they are hurting for jobs now, their lovely new reputation certainly won't draw any new corporations or tourists. This is probably an area of hypersensitivity for me, being from the Great State of Ohio, where the same characterization was made. So I understand better than most of the "talking heads" what they think the tea leaves say. I'm more inclined to believe that these voters were, or will be casting their "Regan Votes" as I did many years ago.
So where are these insane "American" media threads rooted? And why does the working class man or woman in Ohio or Pennsylvania have to be helplessly portrayed as some measure of hayseed, villain or racist because they need jobs. I just wonder if any of the police and firemen or construction workers in Pennsylvania are veterans from my era or later. From what I am hearing reported, as they walk in the shoes of friends, coworkers and team members, they have never had persons of color on their shifts or crews, or working along side them. I wonder if any of them have helped someone or been helped by someone who looks different than in the face of danger or harm. And I just wonder if in their current reality of brotherhood and sisterhood, if in their tradesman and paramilitary cultures, things have become so socially pristine that they have no appreciation of the difference between words and actions.
Should anyone be remotely interested in my assessment of the current race discussion, I will say this first: "A loose tongue is not the same as a barrel of a gun." So let's all take a collective deep breath followed by a perspective pill. In my experience it pays to be continually watchful but you generally need not concern yourself with the obnoxious big mouth. Including those on talk radio or the network news. Why in the world would you overlook your positive ethnic experiences (nearly all of us must certainly have them) or devalue your own reasoning in favor of theirs?
My all time favorite quarterbacks are White, Don Meredith and Joe Montana. My all time favorite basketball players are Black, Earl Monroe and Spencer Haywood, and I would never pull for James Blake to beat Rodger Federer in a tennis match. I loved Ozzie Smith (as shortstops go) but being from Cleveland (where this guy began) I think Omar Visquel is? well, God! The point here being, we are just simply the result of our molded experiences and the associated emotional impacts. I had never understood or watched a round of golf in my entire life until Tiger Wood came along. So it took me until my forties to learn what a bogie and a birdie were. This suggests to me that understanding and appreciation, sometimes present themselves when we present ourselves the opportunity to experience them. And so it goes with race.
Sure the race discussion can compel us to squirm and scratch our heads sometimes. But I can tell you something we never have to scratch my heads about. We are all Americans. Yes, there are fools and hopeless intolerants out there, and they too are Americans. Rules are rules! So if you are inclined, when among the reasonably minded, the race discussion can be had. I have been fortunate enough to calmly have it and more than once. Yep me, the guy who decades past, received, and spewed "all of the worst words" like the good sailor I was. Now, clinging to no claim of perfection or political aspiration, I provide this admission without concern or remorse. Why? Because I still get the occasional Christmas card or phone card from some of those "multicolored friends" from a time long ago. Speaking secretively of unspeakable times and places and reminding me that he once covered my butt, or laughing about the memory of the time I covered his. Most importantly, at the end of the day, I now know that it was never about what was said, and neither was it about race. Only opportunity and experiences yielding appreciation and understanding as measured by the ultimate instrument. Lifelong friendships. In the vast world of "race matters" I suggest that this is a very good starting point.
I am seldom reduced to tales from school days, sailor stories or sports analogies. But I believe that in many aspects of life, the impressions we absorb and the marks we make on others are most clearly visible in our "actions" rather than anything else. So let me conclude by sharing a final bit of valued personal guidance that I received from my Grandmother: "If you want to know what a person is made of, don't watch what they say, watch what they do".
For me that is germane in both daily life and particularly in politics.
Watch what they do?
L. A. Walker
© Leon A. Walker, March 2008
"Here's the flip side of the black feminist complaint that black women are either forced to choose between the two identities politically?or more typically, just have their preferences assumed to coincide with those of black men (See: Clarence Thomas) on pain of ex-communication."
LMAO! Excommunicated from our community? PA-LEEEZ, honey! Over here, we are one half of the sky! We run all this all up in here over here! You should have asked us! We'd've told you we bitterly resented the idea of Thomas succeeding Justice Thurgood Marshall, no matter what the bought-n-bossed black RePunkniCon talking heads told you.
Seriously, how many free-thinking black sisters have you actually chatted up? Because, that above stated tripe is pure B.S. We black women tend to support the lying crooks who best deceive us into believing that they have our best interest at heart, hence FDR, JFK, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Black women probably haven't taken much political advice from our men folk since my grandparents elected Woodrow Wilson as the lesser of electable evil.
In the future, try to resist the urge to broadly ascribe majority feminist trends to all women who vote. Justice Clarence Thomas was a Bush41 appointment approved by the legislature of that time. Had black women been any semblance of the deciding factor on his appointment to the court, Clarence Thomas would still be practicing law in some nondescript firm far out of the public's eye. Sistas were home praying that Thomas died trying to pass through the congressional gauntlet, hoping anyone but him made it through. Clarence Thomas did not represent the Black Community in our eyes. Clarence Thomas was little more than another conservative loyal Bushite who just happened to be black. That he was a black Bushite married to a white woman, coupled with his obvious disdain for our community as demonstrated by the Anita Hill mess, made it official that there was not enough of ANYTHING influential in the whole of Black America to convince sistas that the likes of this bitter, oppressive, angry, hostile, self-hating, chauvenistic heel had Black America's best interest at heart. Please believe that.
After reading the rest of the dialect between Obama and Cooper on CNN's post, I have to disagree with Ms Dickerson. While I respect her caution and watchfulness, I think that Obama was referring to "other conventional candidates" as reflected by the *conventional* politics being played out in their campaigns. He follows his statement with this paragraph:
"If I was just running the textbook campaign -- doing the conventional thing -- I probably wasn't going to win because Sen. [Hillary] Clinton was going to be much more capable of doing that than I would be? We had tremendous success, and I think we were starting to get a little comfortable and conventional right before Texas and Ohio."
It's possible that he caught himself and used that next paragraph to camouflage his comments, but it doesn't strike me that way. I think instead that he was trying to point out that (considering the context) Clinton - as a conventional candidate - would not have taken the risky chance to stand up and make the speech and tackle issues that Obama has.
Sixty years ago, my high school science teacher warned on the first day of class: "I will never fail you for giving me the wrong answer. I will, however, fail you for accepting the wrong question." I didn't understand him then, but after six decades in the school of hard knocks I reluctantly admit the wisdom of his words. In these critical times, it looks as if Americans have accepted the wrong question?the question of race in the United States.
Senator Barack Obama is right. To focus on race in this country is a distraction from crucial issues of survival at home and abroad. But Senator Obama is also wrong. In these times he can best serve all Americans as a preacher, not a president.
To embark on a "national debate" on race now is to distract from crucial issues affecting all Americans black and white alike: a fast-sinking economy, sickening banking and health care systems, a home mortgage meltdown, and preemptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq draining blood and treasure, and global warming, to name but a few. To avert our eyes now will assure that all Americans, regardless of race, will go down with the same ship to drown in a colorblind sea.
How many of the candidates are poor? None. They are all wealthy. Let's get passed who is female, who is black, who is old, who is left or who is right. These "differences" - gender, ethnicity/race, nationality, religion, age, sexuality, etc. ? are merely ways to "divide" people for the purpose of keeping the wealthy elite rich and powerful. The rich (all 3% of them) got us fighting each other (all 97% of us) while they continue their greedy quest to own and control everything.
March 21, 2008
Freelance Writer
Pensacola, Florida
leonwalker@cox.net
"Like A Storm"
I am amazed at what I have seen among young voters in this country. I am equally amazed that this is being ignored or overlooked in the media in favor of such nonsence as passports and preachers. These snacks of political mischief that our media continues to serve us. Something I like to call "the devil's hor dourvers". Of all of the political stories of this campaign season, the story of America's youth activism and participation is both pridefully awe inspiring and historically significant.
The other day I was watching a live news report from the campus of a small college in North Carolina as I lay in bed. At that moment I felt as if I was actually watching a Saturday pregame sports rally. As a backdrop for the news commentators, there were several hundred excited students with signs, cheering in support of Senator Barack Obama and anticipating his forthcoming speech on their campus. Now get this? It was 11:57 PM here in the Panhandle of Florida where I was resting comfortably. Meaning of course, that it was nearly 1:00 AM in North Carolina! Let me say this a different way. When a bunch of college kids are hanging out at 1:00 AM awaiting a political rally I find that striking. They were not at home studying, or partying or surfing the internet. They were organinizing and participating politically! Perhaps this is not particularly significant to you. So let me delicately suggest that? "you start paying attention".
The scene I have just describeded is being played out over and over again on hundreds of campuses throughout the country. Millions of America's youth are actively participating and their votes and voices are having a tremendous impact. Say what you like about Generation X but what I know is, that they are a very bright and well educated generation of young people. More importantly, they are also extremely comfortable with their idenfifications and associations across social and ethnic landscapes. Two simple examples of this is truth, are music and their many multi-cultural and multi-racial friends, classmates and associates. This generation of young voters is far more comfortable with each other as people in general, as individuals, rather than members of any group. This is an aspect of their blended reality that is more significant than any prior generation in the history of this country.
Generation "X" is seemingly embracing Senator Obama because they not only believe in his message of change and his qualifications. They are not only embracing him because they agree with his political views and in particular, his pledge to end the war in Iraq. They are "also" embracing and supporting him because he "represents" and "looks like" them, and so many others among their friends, peers and intellectual and artistic icons.
Generation "X" is a mixture of "Americana" that we have not inspected and appreciated for its social intrigue. Nor for its mystical model of future generations. Generation "X" is what what America is becoming and what America was intended, if not destined to become.
At fifty four years old this whole "Obama" story is just phenomanal for me. However, this amazing story that is Senator Obama's life, is not nearly as surprising for my niece who is a twenty year old "Junior" in college. Many of her close friends, classmates and associates are from international families, blended families, divorced families and from both challenged and affluent pasts. She herself, has a father who is African (born and raised in Gambia) who is an engineer, educated in the United States. Her mother (my sister) and our family are African Americans.
We Americans see things from many different perspectives and that is among the many wonderful things that make life in this country both enjoyable and challenging. It makes being an American special and wonderful in a variety of ways. That is also why is is so important to take note of what so many of our young people are currently engaged in politically. Their votes and voices and activism are sending a resounding message that deserves much more consideration. Not only should we be more loudly applauding their participation, we should be absorbing a very significant message. We should be observing the example of these youth. Our children and young family members are teaching us a lesson. They are demonstrating to America what America really is. They are "walking the American walk" in a way that is not affected or contrived. Why? Because the live in a technological world that is colorful and colorless. They do not carry around old scars of political or social ideology as inescapable baggage. Why? Because they have information, education and experiences that are new and very different. Different from those of the average (I dare not say "typical") American of twenty or thirty years ago or beyond.
Generation "X" is having an incredible impact on this policical contest and they are a voting block that may well make the difference. This is to say nothing of the fact that they have influence. Influence on their parents and family members in encouraging their participation and swaying them to their way of thinking. It is a pretty powerful thing when your child invites you to have an adult discussion (about anything) and requests your support.
I am so very proud of America's youth and what I have been priveliged to see them so intensely engaged in this political season. This is a historic story that I will continue to tell for years to come. I would like nothing more than to see this contest for the Democratic Party nomination end as soon as possible. In the meantime, I am focusing my attention not on the moldy media snacks, but on the "Obama" youth support movement.
I don't care if you are a democrat or republican or independent. I don't care what your views on any particular candidate or issues are. You might want to just take a momement to look over your shoulder and observe and what our young people are doing.
They are gathering like a storm.
L. A. Walker
© Leon A. Walker, March 2008
Leon A. Walker
March 23, 2008
Freelance Writer
Pensacola, Florida
leonwalker@cox.net
"Watch What They Do"
A Simplistic Discussion About Race
I referred to myself in a previous column as a "Lifelong Democrat". For the most part that is accurate, but the truth is when I was in the military decades ago I voted for Ronald Regan. I do have a very good, however selfish excuse though. He was touting the development of a six hundred ship Navy and promising a very large pay raise. Regan made good on his promise. I never told anyone I voted for him and frankly it still makes me uncomfortable. But hey, I needed the money.
It is interesting that in my reflecting on that part of my life there was another striking ambiguity with regard to race. But first let me begin by sharing that I began my "unofficial" undergraduate studies on "race" began while attending two predominantly White Catholic Schools growing up. In my nearly exclusively Black neighborhood we referred to people only as Black or White and we had a single derogatory word that we used in reference to each race. I'm guessing I would have been in about fourth of fifth grade when I began to learn that there were actually many other ethnically specific derogatory tags. There were numerous ethnicities represented in my schools. Italians, Irishmen, Poles, Hispanics, Germans and a number of other eastern and central Europeans. Along with a few Blacks. All I will say further about this is that in Catholic School I learned an equal measure about both the godly and the ungodly.
In earned my "unofficial" graduate credential on "race" in our United States Navy. I have to say that it was an absolutely bizarre blessing. Not only were all of the aforementioned ethnic groups again represented they were my friends and brethren in a trail mix of Americana that I still periodically reflect upon and savor. I spent twenty years and twenty minutes in the Navy and I was fortunate to spend the first half of my career as an enlisted guy. As a young sailor I lived in a world where the sanctity and pride in the team or unit transcended all else. Make no mistake, the things we said among "just us" were light years beyond today's universe of propriety. We casually used ethnically specific words and phrases that could only be described as ghastly! So much so, that if I related some of them today it would be shocking and scarcely believable. The interesting thing about this was that then, and today it has never mattered. Except to say that through it all, and experiences beyond, I learned to see the soul of a man. I know this because at sea and in combat, in bar fights and bench clearing brawls and at weddings and funerals, we were always one. For all of the potential faults, these experiences broadened my racial field of vision. My associations of today are appropriately reflective and I am eternally grateful for that.
I have a thorough grasp of the concepts of respect and propriety and the many other important even grave aspects of life. I know something about war first hand. I have many times seen, and I understand both death and danger. I know the difference between words and works. I understand that there can be a "huge" difference between immaturity, ignorance and insensitivity versus racism or hate.
I am fortunate to have never lived in a veritable "ethnic bubble" and I know quite a bit about people. The one common factor is that they are not perfect. I am compelled to make it clear that I do not condone or encourage hurtful or even insensitive "words" between people and I do not allow myself to be verbally victimized. But neither do I habitually or spontaneously leap forth to stand in judgment without invitation or good reason. Why? Because I do not always pretend to know from whence such comments come, nor how they are intended in full content and context. I could not possibly understand what impulses, experiences and thoughts inspire words within another person. More importantly, experience has taught me that words however seemingly insensitive or misguided are not always the measure of the heart and soul within. Things are not always the way they seem.
I have been listening and reading the media pundits about the importance of and the projected outcomes of the forthcoming Pennsylvania Primary Election. I am saddened and embarrassed and even angered by the characterizations of this "blue collar" voting block that is supposedly so closed minded, myopic and rigid. Essentially what is being reported is that they are and will vote (nearly exclusively) for Senator Clinton and attaching a subtle racial subtext. That is a horrible sweeping generalization that is a media abomination. Just one more high tech poison pen letter. I will not elaborate on the many others of late. The influence of media in America continues to cultivate dangerous seeds across a broad spectrum of topics. "There are both benefits and hazards with regard to freedoms of speech and expression." This point I am making has nothing to do with votes cast or those to be cast. I view this as a good example, given the contest spread at particularly at this late, if not hopeless juncture. Such reporting is a prediction and statement of the very thing we claim to abhor as the question of race has surfaced nationally. They, (the media) are making Pennsylvania out to be America's intellectual doldrums and a veritable toilet of intolerance. If they are hurting for jobs now, their lovely new reputation certainly won't draw any new corporations or tourists. This is probably an area of hypersensitivity for me, being from the Great State of Ohio, where the same characterization was made. So I understand better than most of the "talking heads" what they think the tea leaves say. I'm more inclined to believe that these voters were, or will be casting their "Regan Votes" as I did many years ago.
So where are these insane "American" media threads rooted? And why does the working class man or woman in Ohio or Pennsylvania have to be helplessly portrayed as some measure of hayseed, villain or racist because they need jobs. I just wonder if any of the police and firemen or construction workers in Pennsylvania are veterans from my era or later. From what I am hearing reported, as they walk in the shoes of friends, coworkers and team members, they have never had persons of color on their shifts or crews, or working along side them. I wonder if any of them have helped someone or been helped by someone who looks different than in the face of danger or harm. And I just wonder if in their current reality of brotherhood and sisterhood, if in their tradesman and paramilitary cultures, things have become so socially pristine that they have no appreciation of the difference between words and actions.
Should anyone be remotely interested in my assessment of the current race discussion, I will say this first: "A loose tongue is not the same as a barrel of a gun." So let's all take a collective deep breath followed by a perspective pill. In my experience it pays to be continually watchful but you generally need not concern yourself with the obnoxious big mouth. Including those on talk radio or the network news. Why in the world would you overlook your positive ethnic experiences (nearly all of us must certainly have them) or devalue your own reasoning in favor of theirs?
My all time favorite quarterbacks are White, Don Meredith and Joe Montana. My all time favorite basketball players are Black, Earl Monroe and Spencer Haywood, and I would never pull for James Blake to beat Rodger Federer in a tennis match. I loved Ozzie Smith (as shortstops go) but being from Cleveland (where this guy began) I think Omar Visquel is? well, God! The point here being, we are just simply the result of our molded experiences and the associated emotional impacts. I had never understood or watched a round of golf in my entire life until Tiger Wood came along. So it took me until my forties to learn what a bogie and a birdie were. This suggests to me that understanding and appreciation, sometimes present themselves when we present ourselves the opportunity to experience them. And so it goes with race.
Sure the race discussion can compel us to squirm and scratch our heads sometimes. But I can tell you something we never have to scratch my heads about. We are all Americans. Yes, there are fools and hopeless intolerants out there, and they too are Americans. Rules are rules! So if you are inclined, when among the reasonably minded, the race discussion can be had. I have been fortunate enough to calmly have it and more than once. Yep me, the guy who decades past, received, and spewed "all of the worst words" like the good sailor I was. Now, clinging to no claim of perfection or political aspiration, I provide this admission without concern or remorse. Why? Because I still get the occasional Christmas card or phone card from some of those "multicolored friends" from a time long ago. Speaking secretively of unspeakable times and places and reminding me that he once covered my butt, or laughing about the memory of the time I covered his. Most importantly, at the end of the day, I now know that it was never about what was said, and neither was it about race. Only opportunity and experiences yielding appreciation and understanding as measured by the ultimate instrument. Lifelong friendships. In the vast world of "race matters" I suggest that this is a very good starting point.
I am seldom reduced to tales from school days, sailor stories or sports analogies. But I believe that in many aspects of life, the impressions we absorb and the marks we make on others are most clearly visible in our "actions" rather than anything else. So let me conclude by sharing a final bit of valued personal guidance that I received from my Grandmother: "If you want to know what a person is made of, don't watch what they say, watch what they do".
For me that is germane in both daily life and particularly in politics.
Watch what they do?
L. A. Walker
© Leon A. Walker, March 2008
"Here's the flip side of the black feminist complaint that black women are either forced to choose between the two identities politically?or more typically, just have their preferences assumed to coincide with those of black men (See: Clarence Thomas) on pain of ex-communication."
LMAO! Excommunicated from our community? PA-LEEEZ, honey! Over here, we are one half of the sky! We run all this all up in here over here! You should have asked us! We'd've told you we bitterly resented the idea of Thomas succeeding Justice Thurgood Marshall, no matter what the bought-n-bossed black RePunkniCon talking heads told you.
Seriously, how many free-thinking black sisters have you actually chatted up? Because, that above stated tripe is pure B.S. We black women tend to support the lying crooks who best deceive us into believing that they have our best interest at heart, hence FDR, JFK, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Black women probably haven't taken much political advice from our men folk since my grandparents elected Woodrow Wilson as the lesser of electable evil.
In the future, try to resist the urge to broadly ascribe majority feminist trends to all women who vote. Justice Clarence Thomas was a Bush41 appointment approved by the legislature of that time. Had black women been any semblance of the deciding factor on his appointment to the court, Clarence Thomas would still be practicing law in some nondescript firm far out of the public's eye. Sistas were home praying that Thomas died trying to pass through the congressional gauntlet, hoping anyone but him made it through. Clarence Thomas did not represent the Black Community in our eyes. Clarence Thomas was little more than another conservative loyal Bushite who just happened to be black. That he was a black Bushite married to a white woman, coupled with his obvious disdain for our community as demonstrated by the Anita Hill mess, made it official that there was not enough of ANYTHING influential in the whole of Black America to convince sistas that the likes of this bitter, oppressive, angry, hostile, self-hating, chauvenistic heel had Black America's best interest at heart. Please believe that.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Thu Mar. 20, 2008 2:22 PM PDT.
I don't think he was talking about HRC. He is speaking of being in the general against a rather conventional candidate.
I think he was speaking past HRC - but that's just what I thought first.
It's not by a lack of humility that he speaks past her at this point. Her chances of doing well against him are narrower day by day.
Isn't it possible he referred to Clinton as a "conventional candidate" not because she is white but because for many months, even years, she was considered the inevitable nominee? She was the establishment pick -- there's nothing more "conventional" than that -- and he was the underdog.
Of course, he did suggest he was an underdog because of his race, which invites the thinking Debra displays.
After reading the rest of the dialect between Obama and Cooper on CNN's post, I have to disagree with Ms Dickerson. While I respect her caution and watchfulness, I think that Obama was referring to "other conventional candidates" as reflected by the *conventional* politics being played out in their campaigns. He follows his statement with this paragraph:
"If I was just running the textbook campaign -- doing the conventional thing -- I probably wasn't going to win because Sen. [Hillary] Clinton was going to be much more capable of doing that than I would be We had tremendous success, and I think we were starting to get a little comfortable and conventional right before Texas and Ohio."
It's possible that he caught himself and used that next paragraph to camouflage his comments, but it doesn't strike me that way. I think instead that he was trying to point out that (considering the context) Clinton - as a conventional candidate - would not have taken the risky chance to stand up and make the speech and tackle issues that Obama has.
I'm looking this from the outside, as I'm not an American. And I must confess that American liberals make no sense to me; their eagerness to rip each other apart is so unbelievable. It reminds me of whiny teenagers, if they can't get every single thing that they want from their candidate, they'd rather sulk and hand the election to the conservatives than make the tiniest compromise with the members of their own party. Fortunately this year it does not really matter, since all candidates are quite decent.
I'm politically so far to the left that I'm off the American political map, but I really would not mind if John McCain was elected. That's why this uproar over ultra-microscopic differences between Obama and Clinton is so baffling.
I think you have us pegged wrongly, tommi. Sure, most of us have our preference, but we would gladly, easily, and painlessly accept the other liberal candidate if ours wasn't up for grabs, the alternative being 4 more years of essentially Bush theory in the white house.
It's the national media (including Mother Jones) that casts such a nitpicky spotlight on Clinton and Obama. Their business is news, so when there's little else to report on, they begin to dig, analyze, and explain.
And freak the rest of us out.
It seems the big players (this time excluding Mother Jones) have been paid off (or rather, their parent companies have been) to begin covering the American Election to the exclusion of the war in Iraq. There is little-to-no coverage these days in the US of that atrocity, hence public approval of the war rising slightly after hitting an all-time low a few months back.
Strangely, most of the American liberals I've met (including me) are to the left of American politics, as well. It's just that we live in a nation populated with frustratingly centrist (or alarmingly right-wing) people.
Or maybe he was just referring to the fact that she's from the ranks of the DNC and was the frontrunner. She has in a sense labeled herself the conventional candidate with her Washington experience platform. Come on people, if we look at every comment as some kind of subliminal prejudice, no one will take us seriously when it actually happens.
If Obama is "unconventional", what does that make me? a Metophysical Anomoly?
Billary is not "conventional" because there are two of them in there.
McCain is not conventional because as a Republican, his "sex scandal" involved a woman.
This is all useless waste of good steam.
If Hillary is considered conventional because she is part of the powers that be that comprise the DNC, then what is Obama? After all, thanks to the Clintons, he was invited to address the Democratic Convention thereby garnering the national attention he needed to become the "unconventional" candidate he purports to be today. . .
Hmmm...A black man running for president. At the beginning of this election, before Iowa, I seem to remember people wondering if it was possible for a black man to be president. Everyone assumed Hillary could be, as the Democratic frontrunner against an imploding Republican party. Then he took the lead. Now all of a sudden, people are jumping up and down and shouting, "Hey look! A black man running for president!" I think that's what he was referring to.
Thanks Falafel for including his additional comments. While I do see where Ms. Dickerson is coming from, I'm really getting tired of reporters,journalists, bloggers, etc. (on both sides) taking one line and analyzing it without complete context.
I am tired of the press hammering on Obama for what his minister said. As a member of the protestant faith, I disagree with many ministers...doesn't make me them when they say something out of line.
As to Hillary, why haven't we seen this:
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6117
Clinton's former pastor sentenced to prison for sexually assaulting a 7 year-old girl.
Might want to check this out as well:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/20/7798/
Published on Thursday, March 20, 2008 by The Nation
Hillary's Nasty Pastorate
by Barbara Ehrenreich
Here is a humorous feminist who thinks you are way off base here. But then I have studied Obama intensely for the past three months and feel I know him somewhat better than the average person (yeah, my Barack IQ at the Chicago Tribune is 100%).
His campaign positioned itself as a non-traditional campaign, not focusing on polls and focus groups, but rather on consistency of narrative and message. His candidacy is not so much about issues as it is about the process of leadership. It is should also be obvious that Clinton has extensive ties in the Democratic party machinery in many states, particularly "the big states".
So when he describes her as a conventional candidate he is remarkably non-sexist in that he is viewing her candidacy not through any gender or racial lens, but through the lenses I have described above.
I have done some phone banking for Obama and occasionally had some interesting discussions with Clinton supporters. There seems to be a great deal of projection going on here, in that they seem very focused on her candidacy as a woman, and they talk a lot about their support in terms of wanting to see a woman in the White House, then they tack on something about her experience. They then make a leap and project onto Obama that his candidacy is somehow about race, when for Obama himself, it clearly isn't. Hillary herself has done the same things in the debates I watch, consistently making comments linking race and gender in terms of why this race is historic. Barack smiles politely but it is clear this isn't his message.
I think Obama's campaign is historic not because it is about an African-American candidate but because of all the innovative and creative methods the campaign has employed. As one article wrote, Obama's campaign is a Mac. Clinton's is a PC.
Barack is about process more than policy. He is about running a grassroots campaign and a 50 state strategy. He is about changing how we talk about issues and how we conduct ourselves in a campaign. He is running an unconventional campaign. Hillary's methods and tactics contrast sharply, hence are conventional.
Sorry, but I don't think the fact that Hillary is a woman makes her campaign unconventional. Perhaps I am further along in my feminism than this writer is.
Debra,
Thank you so much for so clearly articulating the struggle that I, too, am having in deciding who I want to vote for in the PA primary. As a fellow feminist, I see so clearly the sexism Hillary has had to endure through this campaign (even though, as is evident from the backlash of negative responses you've gotten from your post, men want to insist that has nothing to do with it). But I am uplifted, too, by Obama; what he says and the progress he stands for. For every wow moment, there's a downside. Hillary is unconventional, as a woman. But she is white - conventional. Obama is unconventional as black, but he's a man - conventional. It would be one thing if they both stood for drastically different things, but they're positions are very similar. So I feel that in the end, people are siding with one over the other because of whatever their racial or sexist biases are, and that makes the whole thing feel dirty. I keep thinking about what Bell Hooks said in a talk I heard her give last night at UPenn, that patriarchy has no gender. Only I don't feel that has gotten me any closer to knowing who would be the best candidate.
Thank you for your post. It makes having gotten all of Jonathan Stein's sexist spewings all worth it!
"Just 'cause it's subtle don't mean it ain't there."
On the other hand, just because you're seeing it, doesn't mean it's not your imagination. Can we please do issues and character instead of parsing intent on a syllabic level?
First, couldn't he have been talking about McCain? Second, except for her gender, Clinton is about as conventional a democrat as you could hope to find. Third, Obama is running against a humorless feminist, so I think he is probably well aware of how cranky and judgmental they can be!
Greytdog I think you're confusing the facts. It was John Kerry, not the Clintons, that invited Obama to speak at the National Convention in 2004. John Kerry and the Clintons ain't exactly friends for reasons most Democrats remember. So, no, Obama does not owe the Clintons for his rise in Democratic Party politics or national visibility. Which is all beside the point in this thread.
More relevant is the observation that many have made that taking a snipet of information and trying to wring so much blood out of it isn't doing us all much good. Sad that a few video clips cobbled together and posted on the web, hopefully not by a Democratic candidate's campaign, and a rabid spin-out by the press has turned a man who honorably served this country as a marine, operated on President Lyndon Johnson and received a commendation from the White House for it, and was on more than one occasion invited to the White House as a respected religious leader by none other than President Clinton, has now been turned into a caricature and the object of every imaginable form of hate that this nation can muster. And there doesn't seem to be any end in sight for this snip-and-spin punditry even among progressives as evidenced in this blog.
Welcome to campaign '08.
Sometimes it's impossible to read Dickerson's opinions without getting the feeling that she really does know better - that she's willing to misstate her true opinions for the sake of argument - that her iconoclastic ambitions take precedence over her adherence to common sense.
I don't believe she could've been seriously upset by the "conventional candidate" comment. She's intelligent enough to figure out what he meant:
Clinton is a conventional candidate in 3 ways:
1) her name - duh!
2) her fundraising tactics
3) her divisive politics
Not only humorless, Ms. Dickerson, but tasteless as well...
I can't help but wonder if she'll ever turn her iconoclastic slant toward the conventionally-accepted definition of feminism...or rather, will Ms. Dickerson ever realize that she's not a feminist...more like the bloggers' equivalent of a troll [deleted]
Obama is unconventional not because he's the member of a historically oppressed minority group, but because he doesn't hide his thoughts behind dumbed down Hallmark platitudes or impenetrable wonkitude. He's unconventional because he's - and I say this with awe and admiration - literary.
Wow!! I've been censored on Mojo!!
For the record, I didn't use any profanity in my comment above. I simply went on to compare Ms. Dickerson to a chimpanzee who stands in a corner flinging poo at everyone and everything...later stopping to ask rhetorical questions and assert that everyone deserves to be hit with handfulls of poo sometimes.
I apologize if that offended anyone besides Ms. Dickerson...
"How dare he!" Simple. Because every smart, non-prejudice person who can read English can dare. As I do to. Even your quote, if it's accurate, says "some of the other candidates." Some. Not all. Hillary certainly isn't some in this instance and I think he's well aware of it. Neither is she conventional in that she'd the first viable female presidential candidate. So, all the others being from the political "norm" in our society, at least as far as "race," a term I don't agree with, and "sex" go, this comment makes simple, logical sense and is entirely correct in every logical interpretation.
He knows, as everyone else does too, that simply because of his ethnic background he wasn't as likely to get the nod. And, even though the press likes to build up then tear down, the supposed early front runner, Hillary, also faced the same reduced likelihood because of her sex.
How dare he? Same as I or anyone else with sense dare. Because it's true.
Fact is, whether we're making a Coke/Pepsi choice between Clinton and Obama, there is a difference. She's the face of the establishment, the cautious favorite of the DLC. He's the Jimmy Carter of this race, although I don't think he'll win.
Fact is, McCain will win. Just as sure as Diebold still makes voting machines.
I'm just trying to get my fiance to agree with me so we can leave this shit country, and its mockery of democracy, mockery of choice, together.
I'm far enough to the left that I think the Democratic party are mostly a bunch of wimps, some of them (like Lieberman) almost Republicans. The labels don't mean anything anymore.
Coke vs Pepsi.
Behemoth vs Behemoth.
My choice? To bow out as soon as I'm able, because I have no way to make this shit change, the machine is too well oiled. I'd kill myself, but I have obligations.
Sixty years ago, my high school science teacher warned on the first day of class: "I will never fail you for giving me the wrong answer. I will, however, fail you for accepting the wrong question." I didn't understand him then, but after six decades in the school of hard knocks I reluctantly admit the wisdom of his words. In these critical times, it looks as if Americans have accepted the wrong questionthe question of race in the United States.
Senator Barack Obama is right. To focus on race in this country is a distraction from crucial issues of survival at home and abroad. But Senator Obama is also wrong. In these times he can best serve all Americans as a preacher, not a president.
To embark on a "national debate" on race now is to distract from crucial issues affecting all Americans black and white alike: a fast-sinking economy, sickening banking and health care systems, a home mortgage meltdown, and preemptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq draining blood and treasure, and global warming, to name but a few. To avert our eyes now will assure that all Americans, regardless of race, will go down with the same ship to drown in a colorblind sea.
How many of the candidates are poor? None. They are all wealthy. Let's get passed who is female, who is black, who is old, who is left or who is right. These "differences" - gender, ethnicity/race, nationality, religion, age, sexuality, etc. are merely ways to "divide" people for the purpose of keeping the wealthy elite rich and powerful. The rich (all 3% of them) got us fighting each other (all 97% of us) while they continue their greedy quest to own and control everything.
Debra, I think you are tired because you are spending so much time digging deep and blurring your eyes in search of a bone to pick here. It is sad that even Mother Jones has to attempt to write their own words in between the lines.
Your argument, in my opinion, is based on very little solid ground.
STOP IT. Just stop it. We are so damned tired of this endless race and gender juggernauting. We have the Republicans to beat. The last thing we need to do just now is get creeped out fighting over whether a black man or a white woman is preferable (with nitpicking for sexism -- from obama? come on... and racism -- from hillary? -- cut it out)and ignoring the very real creepiness that another 4 years of republican leadership would bring. It's all just playing into that hand. Idiots.
Pretty weak argument. I think you are putting Hillary in a box by not recognizing her as a conventional candidate. So because she's a woman she cannot be regarded as part of the Democratic/Political establishment? What is more sexist the possibly veiled language on Obama's part or your assertion that because she's a woman she cannot be considered conventional?
Submitted by Jesus B. Ochoa (not verified) on Fri Mar. 21, 2008 2:31 PM PDT.
Oh come now, humorless bat chit?
