It was probably just a matter of time before the discussion of a primary campaign that includes a strong woman candidate and a strong African American candidate include issues of sexism and racism. Right now, the issue getting the most air time is racism. I have an idea about why, but will talk about it later in this post.Let's examine for a moment what is driving all the media frenzy. It's THE MEDIA.
Yes, those folks what are too lazy to actually do any investigative reporting, and prefer to simply go with what they think is "sexy" or "easy to report" -- regardless of its accuracy or merit.
There are two comments that seem to be driving this -- what former president Bill Clinton said about Obama's record regarding the war in Iraq. And a comment Sen. Clinton made about how hope becomes reality.
What Bill Clinton called a "fairy tail" was NOT the Obama campaign, it was the idea that Obama's voting record in Congress is any different on Iraq than Clinton's. Looking just at their votes, one could easily conclude the two candidates have the SAME position on Iraq. THAT is what Bill Clinton was talking about.
Regarding Sen. Clinton's comment, it requires a real stretch of the imagination to think it was racist. She was rightfully pointing out that it takes more than inspiration to make "change" happen. There is absolutely no question that the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the inspiration that sparked the much needed legislative change. But even as remarkable as Dr. King was, a reasonable person would have to acknowledge that he could not have made the change on his own.
President Johnson's legacy ultimately became the Vietnam war, but before that he had a long history of work on advancing civil rights. Dr. King knew it, and the two men were in communication about what needed to be done.
For an overview of that time I suggest you read The Power and the Inspiration, by Sean Wilentz.
In a pair of television interviews earlier this week, Clinton made the uncontroversial historical observation that Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement put their lives on the line for racial equality, and that President Johnson enacted civil rights legislation.
Her point was simple: Although great social changes require social movements that create hope and force crises, elected officials, presidents above all, are also required in order to turn those hopes into laws. It was, plainly, a rejoinder to the accusations by Obama that Clinton has sneered at "hope." Clinton was also rebutting Obama's simplistic assertions about "hope" and the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, and the end of Jim Crow.
The historical record is crystal clear about this, and no responsible historian seriously contests it. Without Frederick Douglass and the abolitionists, black and white (not to mention restive slaves), there would have been no agitation to end slavery, even after the Civil War began. But without Douglass's ally in the White House, the sympathetic, deeply anti-slavery but highly pragmatic Abraham Lincoln, there could not have been an Emancipation Proclamation or a Thirteenth Amendment. Likewise, without King and his movement, there would have been no civil rights revolution. But without the Texas liberal and wheeler-dealer Lyndon Johnson, and his predecessor John F. Kennedy, there would have been no Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Voting Rights Act of 1965.Hope, in other words, is necessary to bring about change--but it is never enough. Change also requires effective leadership inside government. It's not a matter of either/or (that is, either King or Johnson), but a matter of both/and.
Dan Abrams tonight on the Abrams Report is taking the media to task for its poor journalism in reporting this matter. Hopefully someone will post a YouTube video of the exchange.
I would hope everyone would join me in the opinion that racism and sexism are both equally wrong. And I think it's a no-win scenario for any Democrat to try and make either of these a campaign issue.
Having said that, I would like to applaud the Clinton campaign for NOT making a big deal out of comments made by Obama national co-chair Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. the day after the New Hampshire primary. Rep. Jackson went on the attack suggesting that Clinton's tears needed to be "analyzed" ... that they needed to be "looked at very carefully in light of Katrina."
Jackson was clearly making a sexist comment when he suggested that Clinton's tears needed to be "analyzed" -- and could be construed as trying to tie racism into the discussion by including mention of the Katrina tragedy.
I have to wonder why the media didn't make a federal case about this?
Could it be because of their own inherent sexism, so clearly on display leading up to the New Hampshire primary?
Clinton's campaign didn't say anything about this because they don't want this contest to be about gender OR race.
Campaign staff and supporters in both the Obama and Clinton campaigns would be wise to not allow themselves to be drawn into this divisive dialogue by a media that is NOT THEIR FRIEND.
13 comments:
You started out great in this, the media is completely feeding itself with this frenzy of -isms. People have also taken the wrong Bill Clinton quote as a focal point. However, he has, repeatedly recently, attacked Obama's hope and change message directly as being fanciful and false, calling it a "false hope of change."
It doesn't take anything to get a racist message out of what Hillary Clinton said though. The dream of Martin Luther King Jr. was very real, long before Johnson; long before King himself. The dream was real when Dred Scott fought for his freedom here in Missouri. The dream was real for Rosa Parks. The dream was real in Selma Alabama.
The Civil Rights Act didn't make whites and blacks equal. Even today, blacks, and particularly black women, have to fight constant, harsh discrimination - in the workplace, in school, and in general society.
As far as the public reaction to her words; you would have no different reaction to Obama saying "Susan B. Anthony's efforts took a male Congress to make real." I don't believe (or at least I hope it is not the case) that Senator Clinton intended for her remarks to be taken as racist, but they were poorly spoken and should be apologized for, not defended.
I agree with you about Jackson's comments; what he said was poorly spoken as well. However, it makes a serious difference when a running candidate says something like Clinton did, and when someone who is an activist in his own right and happens to be supporting a candidate makes a statement.
As far as Clinton not wanting this campaign to be about race or sex, she would need to stop saying things like what she did above, and remove quotes like "I'm a woman, I embody change" from her rhetoric. Every step of the way she has been off-handedly encouraging the media to go this direction.
This is why I have been saying from the beginning that these campaigns should not be about attacking one another, but should be about explaining why I should vote for the candidate.
John - There was nothing racist in Hillary Clinton's comment, and history proves that what she said is true.
You are correct in saying there is a long way to go regarding equality, but without the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, African Americans would have NO LEGAL RECOURSE to discrimination.
And yes, Susan B. Anthony worked her entire life for women's suffrage. Sadly, she died 14 years, 5 months and 5 days before the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote was passed.
It was Alice Paul who picked up the fight and ultimately embarrassed the Wilson administration into advocating for women's suffrage. Congress passed the measure, and sent it to the states for ratification. And in 1920 it was one male state legislator in Tennessee voting "yea" that secured the vote for women.
All the advocating in the world would not have secured women the right to vote, had their not been male elected officials willing to vote to make it a reality.
In my opinion Sen. Clinton has been forced into reminding people that electing a woman candidate would indeed be significant change. And she has not made this comment "every step of the way" ... it's only been recently that she has talked about it.
If you agree that these kinds of attacks should not be part of the campaign then I strongly suggest that you make that known to your candidate and to the media.
And as for why I'm voting for Sen. Clinton -- it's because I believe she is the best qualified candidate to lead this country.
BAC
BAC, spot on analysis. Terrific post.
I am not contesting the facts of what legislation did what, I am simply pointing out that the way Clinton characterized it appears denigrating to the movement in the same way that pointing out similar facts about the feminism movement lessens the efforts made by feminist activists.
I do believe that these political tactics need to be stopped. I have condemned Edwards when he stoops to these tactics. But in all the interviews, etc. I have seen of Obama, he does avoid this sort of attack (we can debate what the supporters of the various candidates do until the cows come home though...). As far as the media goes, I wash my hands of them; they jumped the shark years ago, led largely by right wing nutjobs like Limbaugh and Faux News.
I agree that Hillary being a woman with a chance of being president is a change, but it isn't the kind of change that Obama, and Edwards to a degree, have been talking about. To understand what I mean about that better, Lawrence Lessig (of CC fame) has several blog posts detailing what he (and to an extent I) hear when we hear candidates talking about change.
John - I honestly believe that Obama's dismissive "your likeable enough Hillary" was a very sexist comment for him to make. It didn't get a lot of play as sexist, because the media itself is sexist and therefore unable to recognize it.
Clinton did not denigrate the civil rights movement in her comments about MKL and LBJ. Do you honestly think the woman is so stupid that she would say something racist right before the SC primary, where the majority of Democratic voters are African American? Give me a break!
What we are seeing happen is a campaign -- Obama's -- taking a comment out of context and making it look like something else. That is classic Karl Rove -- right out of his playbook.
Obama is doing all he can to fuel the flames around this, for political gain. I didn't see Sen. Clinton go after him for his sexist comment, did you?
And there is no question that what Obama is saying is very inspirational to many, but take a look at his legislative history -- both in Congress and in the IL State Legislature. You will find his record is not much different from Sen. Clinton, and in some areas worse. Which is why IL-NOW didn't endorse him when he was running in the state.
National NOW is endorsing Sen. Clinton.
BAC
I do not see that statement of Obama's as sexist; I see it as banter between the candidates. I think he would have been better of not saying anything at all, but it wasn't sexist.
I believe I made it clear that I don't believe that Clinton intended for her comment to be racist; I only made the statement that it can, with no stretch of the imagination, be construed as racist. It was intended to downplay what Obama's talk about "hope" will do, but it was a poor choice of direction to go. All I am saying about it is that she should apologize for saying something that could be misunderstood that way, and move on; not defend it and keep the controversy going.
As far as I have seen, this controversy was started by Hillary misspeaking, and the talking heads fanned it into a flame. Barack's campaign didn't start it, and have only responded to it. Barack himself said he doesn't want to discuss it and would rather focus on his own campaign. That doesn't sound like "Doing all he can to fuel the flames".
The reforms Obama has legislated endorse him more to me than a number of things Clinton has worked on. In fact, the votes of "present" on topics Obama didn't believe he had enough information to form a strong opinion on recommend him more to me as it shows restraint and a desire to understand what he is voting for.
As far as NOW (Illinois or national) supporting Hillary over Barack, it's all well and good, but it would make more news if they were supporting a male over a female, just as african-american activists supporting Obama isn't really news to me.
Personally, I am not going to let one organization or another influence my vote one way or the other. I intend to, as I am doing on my blog right now, go through all the issues and vote for the person I believe is pushing for actions I agree with.
John - I am not surprised that you don't see the comment as sexist, because you are a man. You have not lived through the same experiences as have women.
She said nothing that she need apologize for? Her words were misrepresented by the media, and Obama has said nothing to stop them from doing so. He could put an end to this, but instead he has allowed his volunteer staff to fan the flames. When a member of Clinton's volunteer staff made a comment about Obama's drug use the person was asked to resign. THAT demonstrates taking leadership on this.
Obama didn't need to vote "present" on reproductive rights legislation. He was in a safe district and would have faced no challenge for supporting women's reproductive rights. So his "present" vote was at best politically motivated, if he does not truly support women's reproductive rights.
It's an issue of importance to me, and to a lot of women. It's the main reason I joined NOW back in the 80's, to fight for women's reproductive rights.
You have clearly stated why you support Obama, and I could use your words to express why I am supporting Senator Clinton -- that I agree with her stand on the issues. Am I coming over to your blog to disagree with you? No. Do I need to?
BAC
I'm not disagreeing with you on why you support Hillary. I am disagreeing with your method of attacking Barack. I also spoke out against Edwards's comments about Clinton and supported your statements against Jessie Jackson Jr.
This is not a so-and-so is better than the other issue for me. This is a "the politics of attacking your rival without giving me a reason to vote for you is wrong" issue for me. Personally, I would prefer to be apolitical about this, but only one candidate so far has largely stuck to the way I want a leader to present themself.
I want the primaries, and hopefully the national election as well, to represent a change in the tone of this country from one of constant in-fighting to an open, equal, exchange of ideas. You may call me naive in this hope, but it is what I am sticking to and what I am asking people I respect to do as well.
And I also ask you, please do come to my site and criticize me where I am wrong. I am just one person. I can't find all the facts of a situation on my own so I look for input to help me correct my stance on issues.
Hopefully, this fight has been called:
"Let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans." Hillary Clinton
"If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, then I will speak out forcefully against them, and I hope the other campaigns take the same approach." Barack Obama
John - Until every aspect of your candidate is thoroughly reviewed by the media, there is no way you could possibly understand why I feel compelled to present a more complete picture of Obama. And why do you insist that presenting information about Obama's record constitutes an "attack?" So far he's been getting pretty much a free pass, with Chris Matthews going so far as acting like an Obama cheerleader.
If the MSM is not telling the story, are bloggers supposed to shut up about it? Why do we have a blog, if not to share what we believe to be the truth?
I suggest that if you don't want to read my opinion of Obama's record, then don't read my blog. It's certainly not the Huffington Report or Daily Kos. But then, both of those blogs are anti-Hillary. Are you taking them to task for NOT talking exclusively about the candidate they support?
BAC
BAC:
Exceptional write-up and I'm happy to see that despite your(and my) definite point of view here, you've maintained some optimism.
The MSM are definitely the most culpable in this. Their intensities, I believe, are some combination of these: (1) It has been MSM v President and Senator Clinton since February of 1992 and always will be, (2) Perhaps, the consolidation has created a strong pro-Republican sensibility because of a belief that the GOP has their financial interests more in focus thans the DEMS do, so in an election environment which strongly favors a Democratic winner (see matchbook.com), softening up BOTH Obaman and Clinton helps, as does taking the focus off the issues where the Democrats have a huge edge with the public (3) Obama, being largely a media creation, is THEIR candidate and RACISM > SEXISM because RACISM carries a CLASS KICKER that SEXISM doesn't, so this works good for Obama, as you've well shown with regard to JJ, Jr. video (4) Just to add spice and move product, (5) All or any combination of the above.
That said. I do believe that while the Clintons are blameless, and I don't think Obama was part of some conspiracy, he well knows that he's in a heap of trouble in terms of the horserace after NH for all sorts of quantitative and qualitative reasons. He also knows that his best ASSET in his quest for the nomination is his cozy relationship with the media and he's not going to disregard or throw away their help. He's also got a very powerful figure in TimeWarner CEO Parsons behind him.
Putting myself in Obama's position here, I'm going to play this string out a little longer and see what happens because I can't get hurt bad. The worst that can happen is HRC kills me in the debate before the SC primary and then manages to squeak out a small win. I'm almost out of at this point but I didn't have much to lose anyway after NH, except my dignity but once "race" has been introduced, no one's going to mess with me any further no matter how much of an asshole I am.
So, I'm probably OK for my Senate seat and can get out of this with a HUGE warchest.
And in the meltdown scenario in which I get killed in the debate, and bbq'd by Clinton in the SC primary and I LOSE the love of the media, and the Democratic Party, my corportism, "flexibility", religion, relationship with Lieberman, McCain, Bloomberg and Parsons (who will be GOP candidate for NYC Mayor next time), I can switch Republican Party or go Independent or see what happens if Lieberman and them want to create some kind of other "non-partisan" (right!) party.
Kelso - thanks for your comments.
John - I hope this is over, although I just heard Tim Russert say he "had to" bring it up tonight. He is such an asshole, of COURSE he "has to" bring it up. Would someone please tell me why I keep torturing myself by listening to MSNBC? Yikes!!
BAC
BAC:
I have to jump in to your debate with John J, because while he fights his corner OK, way better than most Obama supporters do, and has a link to his own site which too many Obama supporters don't, you have expressed my own opinions and feelings on this better than I have or could have.
The BAC highlights for me:
"...as for why I'm voting for Sen. Clinton -- it's because I believe she is the best qualified candidate to lead this country..." I love Dennis Kucinich and came into this whole thing as an HRC skeptic, I have been more and more impressed with her as this has gone forward. I always thought she was a good campaigner; now, I see her as a LEADER.
"...Clinton did not denigrate the civil rights movement in her comments about MKL and LBJ. Do you honestly think the woman is so stupid that she would say something racist right before the SC primary, where the majority of Democratic voters are African American? Give me a break!
What we are seeing happen is a campaign -- Obama's -- taking a comment out of context and making it look like something else. That is classic Karl Rove -- right out of his playbook..." I tried on my blog and commenting here to say the same thing, I just didn't do it as eloquently and I missed the Rove connection.
"...She said nothing that she need apologize for? Her words were misrepresented by the media, and Obama has said nothing to stop them from doing so. He could put an end to this, but instead he has allowed his volunteer staff to fan the flames. When a member of Clinton's volunteer staff made a comment about Obama's drug use the person was asked to resign. THAT demonstrates taking leadership on this..." That was not just ANYBODY she fired. That was BILLY SHAHEEN in advance of THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY! Would anyone without courage fire a KENNEDY in advance of the Massachusetts primary?
"...Obama didn't need to vote "present" on reproductive rights legislation. He was in a safe district and would have faced no challenge for supporting women's reproductive rights. So his "present" vote was at best politically motivated, if he does not truly support women's reproductive rights...." Thanks for doing the research on that particular "present" vote. I'd always suspected he had a pretty weak women's rights voting record overall and it dovetails neatly with his religiosity and homophobia. I'll add that while he didn't vote "present" he was physically absent when the Terry Schiavo vote was taken.
"John - Until every aspect of your candidate is thoroughly reviewed by the media, there is no way you could possibly understand why I feel compelled to present a more complete picture of Obama. And why do you insist that presenting information about Obama's record constitutes an "attack?" So far he's been getting pretty much a free pass, with Chris Matthews going so far as acting like an Obama cheerleader...." Great point, but not John's fault. Obama supporters rightly assumed based on all history that he's going to get a free ride all the way, so even BLOGGERS legitimate points about Obama are anathema to his supporters. As for me, there are many, many negative things I can point out and have pointed out about HRC. Unlike Obama fans who've been in this fantasyland of inspiration and self-congratulation, I have a rather more instrumental view of politics. In a democracy nobody gets everything they want. You weigh them up and make your choice. I'd like HRC herself to be a little more aggressively pro-choice. I wish she were less hawkish. Knowing that I'm picking a President not God, being 60% for her on the issues and 90+% for her on her leadership abilities and 100% for her having the most comprehensive macroeconomic knowledge, I got zero problem with voting for her.
"...If the MSM is not telling the story, are bloggers supposed to shut up about it? Why do we have a blog, if not to share what we believe to be the truth?" AN "AMEN" FROM THE CHOIR. We bloggers are stuck with the MSM and a lot of politicians who range from bland careerism to larceny to sadism, but we DON'T HAVE TO LIKE IT AND WE DON'T HAVE TO BE QUIET ABOUT IT.
"...John - I am not surprised that you don't see the comment as sexist, because you are a man. You have not lived through the same experiences as have women..." DAMN, I FEEL LIKE MAKING A PUN ON THE BOWIE SONG "JOHN, I'M ONLY DANCING" BUT I CAN'T THINK OF A GOOD ONE! We part company here a bit, BAC, but in a good way. It's obvious that John and I move in very different circles because I don't know too many men who aren't for Clinton. Not sure what John's background is but you know mine and the guys I hung around with in the states and Europe and now in Panama are hardly "feminists," although I am a feminist man and everyone who knows me knows it. A lot of that comes from my mother who just bit down hard and made her way to the highest level of her profession and although my Dad is very, very street in a lot of ways, sexist is not one of them. He's a pretty tough guy still at 76and was a holy terror as a young man and would not hesitate to call himself a feminist.
As far as the dudes I hang out with especially here in Panama, it's really a very simple question which you answered who -- other than a Republican which would be intolerable -- would make the best president of the USA? For every the most retrograde pol and bagmen and folks I know, the answer is clear on a lot of levels: HRC! It has something to do with the Clintons' relatioship with our PRD but the funny thing about the gambling/finance/grass-roots political worlds is that instrumental and material sexism doesn't really enter into the picture. It's very much about getting the best of it in terms of money or power or whatever. So, it's not so much that it's good that HRC's a woman, it's that IT DOESN'T MATTER because she's the obvious choice.
And, no, I'm not the most evolved man, either. I, too, see the right candidate with the right skills who's likely to win and be best for the USA, Panama and the world.
Post a Comment