Don't agonize, organize ... that's my mantra. Change won't happen unless you work to make it happen! But sometimes even your best efforts don't provide the results you were looking for. Or sometimes a situation is just so completely outrageous that all you can do is say ... YIKES!
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Obama Campaign Redefining Change?
Is Barack Obama campaign national co-chair Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) now channeling Rush Limbaugh? Come on guys, if you are claiming to be the agent of "change" then you MUST speak out against sexism. A clip like THIS doesn't make you part of the solution ... it makes you PART OF THE PROBLEM.
... .. But those tears also have to be analyzed. ... .." - Obama campaign spokesperson, Jesse Jackson, Jr.
If you want ME to believe you are about changing the dialogue in this country, then LEAD BY EXAMPLE! Be the change you wish to see in the world!
I have long been an admirer of Jesse Jackson, Jr., and had believed it was he and not Obama who belonged in the Junior U.S. Senate seat from Illinois. Better, I suppose, to have my bubble burst than carry my illusions any further. I've been on a one-man crusade for Kucinich and Clinton but even more so AGAINST Obama for years. Since his Father Coughlin-esque speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.
Obama has shown himself so far to be a homophobe of the highest order. And last night, he let slip an anti-Native American bias.
One of my main anti-Obama themes has been that it's important for White Democrats to approach these primaries with the same clarity Black Democrats do. Or perhaps White Democrats are recognizing Obama's right-wing essence ARE seeing and preferring him to Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, et al. I do know, however, that many White Democrats project a Martin Luther King, Jr., fantasy onto Obama and don't see him for what he is -- Joe Lieberman with darker skin. So, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am appalled at Jackson's arrant sexism. He is going to have to go a long ways to earn himself back into my good graces.
I, too, blogged about the sexism surrounding this Clinton "incident" and if you read my blog of today, you will be happy to find out that I was lucky enough to have heard two nights ago of an internal Clinton poll which had the race called perfectly and it HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SENATOR CLINTON CRYING OR NOT CRYING OR CRYING FOR KATRINA OR CRYING BECAUSE SHE HAD JUST CHOPPED ONIONS!
I know I still owe you a Banco Azucarero de Cali (BAC) jpg from down here on the Isthmus. I will send it to you. For now, I'm just going to remedy an error and link to you on my blog.
Nice job. I was a JJ,JR., fan, but I can face the facts. I'm no fan now.
I tried to add my name to the petition but as I live in Panama and there were no foreign resident options, my name was not accepted. I'll do it with my former US address.
The Maureen Dowd column referenced in the petition has made me even angrier than I was before at Messrs Obama and Jackson. So, here goes nothing...sort of an open letter to Obama, Jackson and Dowd.
OBAMA & JACKSON: Let me tell you a little something about myself. I am a New Yorker of Russian-Jewish extraction, a loyal Democratic voter, now permanent resident of the City Of Panama in the Republic Of Panama. Your fucking bullshit campaign has made me feel like I'm the only straight American man who despises you for your homophobia and sexism. I'm also an atheist, a feminist, I'm white (but my skin is about Obama's color), I'm 5' 7" and hardly a big strong masculine basketball bullshit artist like you two. I speak fluent Spanish, which, I suppose, would make me somehow BENEATH the two of you on the social pecking order in the USA. You both have way more money than I do. But, luckily, I don't live in the USA.
The information I got two nights ago directly from the Clinton campaign via the President of Panama and some members of the PRD who represent the district of San Miguelito was exactly as I described it in my first comment on BAC's post.
Let me tell you something about Panama first of all. EVERY MAN HERE IS ROOTING LIKE CRAZY FOR HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT. Now, tough guys. Let's talk turkey. I know why you're homophobic and believe it or not I feel badly about it which is why I'm a Democrat. I understand that 1/3 of the African-American male population will have to deal with an unfair criminal justice system at some point and as such will have his manhood tested and found wanting at some point, to be delicate about it. I am, unlike Senator Obama, in favor of all sorts of US criminal justice reforms which would eliminate this problem. But it's a problem and it's your problem not mine. I feel comfortable around every kind of person. As to your sexism, it's basically a "calling Dr Freud" situation. I'm happy being a male feminist. Fuck you very much. If I hear another word about "booty" I'm going to vomit. I also loathe gospel music.
Now, as "masculinity" is so important to you fellows, let me go back to my sources of information. The barrio of San Miguelito makes Chicago's first Congressional District look like Beverly Hills. Tough guys like you two would get the crap beaten out of you with the flick of a fingernail, but a little wimpy guy like me walks through it at night without a problem. There's a reason. I'M FUCKING NICE TO PEOPLE AND TREAT THEM WITH RESPECT.
From everything I've observed about this campaign, Senator Clinton and Representative Kucinich are the "strong" people and Senator Obama is the "weak" sister. Yikes!
Ah, Miss Maureen Dowd. Another "macho-ist," lover of the "humble-cop-on-the-beat," lover of Mr.Straight Talk McCain, anti-Feminist...fuck you. Your ideal Irish-American macho men would fare even worse in San Miguelito than Obama and Jackson would.
Yet, somehow all of these vulgar Latinos with their unsophisticated machismo can see in Senator Clinton what none of you can.
I don't like to stoop to these levels. I feel like my education, my life experience, my compassion and my sensitivity have taken me to a different place. But fools like the three of you and the rest of the MAINSTREAM MEDIA bring out the worst in me. Yikes!
Stay strong, Senator Clinton. You know you have lots of friends in Panama and I'm one of them.
As for Obama and Jackson and Dowd, I am very, very disappointed. Well, I'm disppointed in Jackson. This is all par for the course for Dowd and Obama.
I too want to see how Obama responds to Jackson's quote, but I wouldn't yet go so far as to reflect a, for all intents and purposes, biased pundit's (aren't they all) views on the candidate.
This is a time for our country to unite, no matter who your preferred candidate is, not a time to attack with whatever lies can be made up. Yes, stop attacking Hillary, but also stop attacking Barack the same way. Instead of tearing down candidates, this primary season should be a time of growth. At least do as my mother, and hers, and hers, etc. taught me: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
Moves like this (on both sides) just scream hypocrisy to the voters.
Kelso, thanks for your comments and your obvious passion. I've said from the start that I don't know enough about Obama to know whether or not I could support him. What I've learned from this past week is that when confronted with such obvious sexism, Obama said nothing. For me, if someone is about "change" that is not acceptable. Change must mean addressing the issue of sexism so that his daughters have the same opportunity as any little boy to be president.
And the same goes for Edwards. If he claims he is the agent of change, then he must begin to change the sexism that is still ingrained in this culture. He has two daughters, which says to me he has a vested interested in making sure his daughters have the same opportunity as his son.
John, if you want me to unite I must feel welcome at the table. I am anxious to see if Obama responds to this clip. I'm equally anxious to see if anyone even ASKS him to respond.
I'm going to post something in a minute, written by someone else, that expresses my thoughts on this.
The change I want to see includes people standing up to sexism the same way I hope everyone would stand up to racism. Neither "ism" is worse than the other ... they are BOTH wrong.
BAC, I'm glad you felt the passion and didn't freak out at the words. These issues are very important to me. I know that politics is a game as well as a way to organize society and Obama's game is to be the single most anti-Black Black Democrat in the history of American politics while claiming to be some agent of change. When does something so rich as to be a crybaby and have a subordinate present his Black bonafides for him to attack a woman while preserving his own White bonafides I have to -- as a blogger -- be an umpire of this game.
I do not appreciate being played for a fool which is also why I agree with you about Edwards and have myself chosen Clinton and Kucinich as my candidates. It goes back to the homophobia again and Edwards showed me exactly how much he had "changed" over 4 years during the debate when he seemed positively disgusted that two people of the same gender might prefer sex and love with each other. Again, I know it's a game and he needs to preserve his ties to his Christian base. I don't have to like it.
I have not found Obama or Edwards particularly to be about inclusion. I have found them to be rather poor players in the chess game of politics. Neither Senator Clinton nor Representative Kucinich have lied to me yet and I can't see anything particularly exclusionary about either person's ideology and material actions.
I don't intend ever to be nice about this. If white voters, Democrats included, want a black candidate who is homophobic, sexist, bellicoss and bigoted in god knows how many other ways, who can do an ersatz MLK, JR, church thing, I think Alan Keyes is a way better choice for them than Barack Obama.
I'm comfortable with my choices and I will always believe in instrumental and material civil rights, civil liberrties and equality of opportunity than the necessity to hew to anyone's notion of political correctness. I happen to prefer good manners, but once those are no longer part of the process, I want the fight.
Last I saw, Obama has invited everyone to the table, no exclusions. In fact, he is the only candidate I have seen in the past 8 years ask for applause for a rival at his own rally.
I don't know if Obama himself needs to respond with a speech, but some action by his campaign should occur. This was an action taken (potentially) independently by someone who works on his campaign.
Kelso, I would not use the same language you have to describe Obama. I don't feel that I really know him. I will say that I do think he was presented with an opportunity, and did not make a good choice. Hopefully he has learned from this, and a response to the comments from JJ, Jr. would be an indication of such.
I don't "know" what it is like to be an African-American Senator. I have, however, spoken with a former IL Senator, Carol Moseley Braun, and her first comments about Obama referenced what a difficult time he would have, because everyone would expect him to be the "Black" Senator.
According to Taylor Marsh, Obama was asked by the Congressional Black Caucus to join in a protest of the Ohio vote count, and he said no. Her take was that he did not want to be identified as "the Black Senator" ... which would kind of go along with Braun's comments.
The bottom line is that in some of this he's in a "no-win" situation as well. But I still believe that if his campaign is truly about change, then he must address sexism.
I don't know if Obama himself needs to respond with a speech, but some action by his campaign should occur. This was an action taken (potentially) independently by someone who works on his campaign.
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is not just "someone who works on his campaign" -- he is one of Obama's national co-chairs. It's a very important position with the campaign. I certainly do hope Obama says something.
John J, with all due respect and I mean that sincerely because I think you write and reason well, I do not think Obama has invited everybody. He has gone out of his way to invite the most retrograde elements available to him in the electorate while taking the rest for granted using five-and-dime semiotics.
If Obama had shown me the leadership skills and courage of such legislators as Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney, Jim McDermott, Dennis Kucinich, Robert Wexler, or Sheila Jackson-Lee, let alone Senator Clinton, I might feel differently about him. I find him singularly appalling.
John - I did a quick check-in with my NOW friends in IL about their take on Obama. IL-NOW didn't endorse Obama in 2004, because of his weak positions on LGBT civil rights and women's rights. They also had a lot to say about other issues as well, but I will leave that for another day.
My bet, as to why they didn't support him in 2004, is that he has said he supports civil unions (with all the same rights as marriage) rather than use the word "marriage". I understand both sides of that arguement. Personally, I disagree with him and think that using different words does leave the door open to later discrimination.
Honestly though, I think government should remove the word marriage from civil documents completely and treat it as a religious institution that government has no part in and doesn't endorse. This would make everyone a part of a civil union and remove the distinction back-handedly. But like you said, this is a complicated issue best left for another day.
John, I will share with you that as someone who works as a full time activist on church-state separation, we have houses of worship that have come to us saying they want the "marriages" they perform for same-sex couples to have the same legal recognition as the ceremonies they perform for heterosexual couples. It is a religious liberty issue, and as such it should be legal.
14 comments:
Oh no, BAC, Yikes!
I have long been an admirer of Jesse Jackson, Jr., and had believed it was he and not Obama who belonged in the Junior U.S. Senate seat from Illinois. Better, I suppose, to have my bubble burst than carry my illusions any further. I've been on a one-man crusade for Kucinich and Clinton but even more so AGAINST Obama for years. Since his Father Coughlin-esque speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.
Obama has shown himself so far to be a homophobe of the highest order. And last night, he let slip an anti-Native American bias.
One of my main anti-Obama themes has been that it's important for White Democrats to approach these primaries with the same clarity Black Democrats do. Or perhaps White Democrats are recognizing Obama's right-wing essence ARE seeing and preferring him to Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, et al. I do know, however, that many White Democrats project a Martin Luther King, Jr., fantasy onto Obama and don't see him for what he is -- Joe Lieberman with darker skin. So, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am appalled at Jackson's arrant sexism. He is going to have to go a long ways to earn himself back into my good graces.
I, too, blogged about the sexism surrounding this Clinton "incident" and if you read my blog of today, you will be happy to find out that I was lucky enough to have heard two nights ago of an internal Clinton poll which had the race called perfectly and it HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SENATOR CLINTON CRYING OR NOT CRYING OR CRYING FOR KATRINA OR CRYING BECAUSE SHE HAD JUST CHOPPED ONIONS!
I know I still owe you a Banco Azucarero de Cali (BAC) jpg from down here on the Isthmus. I will send it to you. For now, I'm just going to remedy an error and link to you on my blog.
Nice job. I was a JJ,JR., fan, but I can face the facts. I'm no fan now.
Your friend,
Kelso
BAC:
I tried to add my name to the petition but as I live in Panama and there were no foreign resident options, my name was not accepted. I'll do it with my former US address.
The Maureen Dowd column referenced in the petition has made me even angrier than I was before at Messrs Obama and Jackson. So, here goes nothing...sort of an open letter to Obama, Jackson and Dowd.
OBAMA & JACKSON: Let me tell you a little something about myself. I am a New Yorker of Russian-Jewish extraction, a loyal Democratic voter, now permanent resident of the City Of Panama in the Republic Of Panama. Your fucking bullshit campaign has made me feel like I'm the only straight American man who despises you for your homophobia and sexism. I'm also an atheist, a feminist, I'm white (but my skin is about Obama's color), I'm 5' 7" and hardly a big strong masculine basketball bullshit artist like you two. I speak fluent Spanish, which, I suppose, would make me somehow BENEATH the two of you on the social pecking order in the USA. You both have way more money than I do. But, luckily, I don't live in the USA.
The information I got two nights ago directly from the Clinton campaign via the President of Panama and some members of the PRD who represent the district of San Miguelito was exactly as I described it in my first comment on BAC's post.
Let me tell you something about Panama first of all. EVERY MAN HERE IS ROOTING LIKE CRAZY FOR HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT. Now, tough guys. Let's talk turkey. I know why you're homophobic and believe it or not I feel badly about it which is why I'm a Democrat. I understand that 1/3 of the African-American male population will have to deal with an unfair criminal justice system at some point and as such will have his manhood tested and found wanting at some point, to be delicate about it. I am, unlike Senator Obama, in favor of all sorts of US criminal justice reforms which would eliminate this problem. But it's a problem and it's your problem not mine. I feel comfortable around every kind of person. As to your sexism, it's basically a "calling Dr Freud" situation. I'm happy being a male feminist. Fuck you very much. If I hear another word about "booty" I'm going to vomit. I also loathe gospel music.
Now, as "masculinity" is so important to you fellows, let me go back to my sources of information. The barrio of San Miguelito makes Chicago's first Congressional District look like Beverly Hills. Tough guys like you two would get the crap beaten out of you with the flick of a fingernail, but a little wimpy guy like me walks through it at night without a problem. There's a reason. I'M FUCKING NICE TO PEOPLE AND TREAT THEM WITH RESPECT.
From everything I've observed about this campaign, Senator Clinton and Representative Kucinich are the "strong" people and Senator Obama is the "weak" sister. Yikes!
Ah, Miss Maureen Dowd. Another "macho-ist," lover of the "humble-cop-on-the-beat," lover of Mr.Straight Talk McCain, anti-Feminist...fuck you. Your ideal Irish-American macho men would fare even worse in San Miguelito than Obama and Jackson would.
Yet, somehow all of these vulgar Latinos with their unsophisticated machismo can see in Senator Clinton what none of you can.
I don't like to stoop to these levels. I feel like my education, my life experience, my compassion and my sensitivity have taken me to a different place. But fools like the three of you and the rest of the MAINSTREAM MEDIA bring out the worst in me. Yikes!
Stay strong, Senator Clinton. You know you have lots of friends in Panama and I'm one of them.
As for Obama and Jackson and Dowd, I am very, very disappointed. Well, I'm disppointed in Jackson. This is all par for the course for Dowd and Obama.
See you in San Miguelito.
I too want to see how Obama responds to Jackson's quote, but I wouldn't yet go so far as to reflect a, for all intents and purposes, biased pundit's (aren't they all) views on the candidate.
This is a time for our country to unite, no matter who your preferred candidate is, not a time to attack with whatever lies can be made up. Yes, stop attacking Hillary, but also stop attacking Barack the same way. Instead of tearing down candidates, this primary season should be a time of growth. At least do as my mother, and hers, and hers, etc. taught me: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
Moves like this (on both sides) just scream hypocrisy to the voters.
Kelso, thanks for your comments and your obvious passion. I've said from the start that I don't know enough about Obama to know whether or not I could support him. What I've learned from this past week is that when confronted with such obvious sexism, Obama said nothing. For me, if someone is about "change" that is not acceptable. Change must mean addressing the issue of sexism so that his daughters have the same opportunity as any little boy to be president.
And the same goes for Edwards. If he claims he is the agent of change, then he must begin to change the sexism that is still ingrained in this culture. He has two daughters, which says to me he has a vested interested in making sure his daughters have the same opportunity as his son.
BAC
John, if you want me to unite I must feel welcome at the table. I am anxious to see if Obama responds to this clip. I'm equally anxious to see if anyone even ASKS him to respond.
I'm going to post something in a minute, written by someone else, that expresses my thoughts on this.
The change I want to see includes people standing up to sexism the same way I hope everyone would stand up to racism. Neither "ism" is worse than the other ... they are BOTH wrong.
BAC
BAC, I'm glad you felt the passion and didn't freak out at the words. These issues are very important to me. I know that politics is a game as well as a way to organize society and Obama's game is to be the single most anti-Black Black Democrat in the history of American politics while claiming to be some agent of change. When does something so rich as to be a crybaby and have a subordinate present his Black bonafides for him to attack a woman while preserving his own White bonafides I have to -- as a blogger -- be an umpire of this game.
I do not appreciate being played for a fool which is also why I agree with you about Edwards and have myself chosen Clinton and Kucinich as my candidates. It goes back to the homophobia again and Edwards showed me exactly how much he had "changed" over 4 years during the debate when he seemed positively disgusted that two people of the same gender might prefer sex and love with each other. Again, I know it's a game and he needs to preserve his ties to his Christian base. I don't have to like it.
I have not found Obama or Edwards particularly to be about inclusion. I have found them to be rather poor players in the chess game of politics. Neither Senator Clinton nor Representative Kucinich have lied to me yet and I can't see anything particularly exclusionary about either person's ideology and material actions.
I don't intend ever to be nice about this. If white voters, Democrats included, want a black candidate who is homophobic, sexist, bellicoss and bigoted in god knows how many other ways, who can do an ersatz MLK, JR, church thing, I think Alan Keyes is a way better choice for them than Barack Obama.
I'm comfortable with my choices and I will always believe in instrumental and material civil rights, civil liberrties and equality of opportunity than the necessity to hew to anyone's notion of political correctness. I happen to prefer good manners, but once those are no longer part of the process, I want the fight.
Last I saw, Obama has invited everyone to the table, no exclusions. In fact, he is the only candidate I have seen in the past 8 years ask for applause for a rival at his own rally.
I don't know if Obama himself needs to respond with a speech, but some action by his campaign should occur. This was an action taken (potentially) independently by someone who works on his campaign.
Kelso, I would not use the same language you have to describe Obama. I don't feel that I really know him. I will say that I do think he was presented with an opportunity, and did not make a good choice. Hopefully he has learned from this, and a response to the comments from JJ, Jr. would be an indication of such.
I don't "know" what it is like to be an African-American Senator. I have, however, spoken with a former IL Senator, Carol Moseley Braun, and her first comments about Obama referenced what a difficult time he would have, because everyone would expect him to be the "Black" Senator.
According to Taylor Marsh, Obama was asked by the Congressional Black Caucus to join in a protest of the Ohio vote count, and he said no. Her take was that he did not want to be identified as "the Black Senator" ... which would kind of go along with Braun's comments.
The bottom line is that in some of this he's in a "no-win" situation as well. But I still believe that if his campaign is truly about change, then he must address sexism.
BAC
I don't know if Obama himself needs to respond with a speech, but some action by his campaign should occur. This was an action taken (potentially) independently by someone who works on his campaign.
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is not just "someone who works on his campaign" -- he is one of Obama's national co-chairs. It's a very important position with the campaign. I certainly do hope Obama says something.
BAC
John J, with all due respect and I mean that sincerely because I think you write and reason well, I do not think Obama has invited everybody. He has gone out of his way to invite the most retrograde elements available to him in the electorate while taking the rest for granted using five-and-dime semiotics.
If Obama had shown me the leadership skills and courage of such legislators as Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney, Jim McDermott, Dennis Kucinich, Robert Wexler, or Sheila Jackson-Lee, let alone Senator Clinton, I might feel differently about him. I find him singularly appalling.
Kelso, it looks like Obama wants to bring everyone to the proverbial table: LBGT, Native Americans, women and many other under-represented groups.
John - I did a quick check-in with my NOW friends in IL about their take on Obama. IL-NOW didn't endorse Obama in 2004, because of his weak positions on LGBT civil rights and women's rights. They also had a lot to say about other issues as well, but I will leave that for another day.
BAC
My bet, as to why they didn't support him in 2004, is that he has said he supports civil unions (with all the same rights as marriage) rather than use the word "marriage". I understand both sides of that arguement. Personally, I disagree with him and think that using different words does leave the door open to later discrimination.
Honestly though, I think government should remove the word marriage from civil documents completely and treat it as a religious institution that government has no part in and doesn't endorse. This would make everyone a part of a civil union and remove the distinction back-handedly. But like you said, this is a complicated issue best left for another day.
John, I will share with you that as someone who works as a full time activist on church-state separation, we have houses of worship that have come to us saying they want the "marriages" they perform for same-sex couples to have the same legal recognition as the ceremonies they perform for heterosexual couples. It is a religious liberty issue, and as such it should be legal.
BAC
Post a Comment