Back in June, I had wondered what the dynamic would be like here at TPM Café after Obama became the presumptive nominee.  It had been so rancorous between the Obama and Clinton camps that I was unsure how things would play out.  While there were a few weeks of calm and relative peace among the readers, things heated up with the impeachment and FISA issues.  Finally, after a primary dominated by such issues as flag pins, commander-in-chief credentials, and working class “bitterness”, there was an opportunity for the Democrats and Obama to distinguish themselves from the Republicans and McCain.  Right?  Well, no.  But at least prominent Obama supporters such as Robert Wexler, Russ Feingold, and Chris Dodd were leading the impeachment and FISA challenges.  This spoke well for Obama, right?  Well, apparently no.  

Of course, there were many readers who felt strongly about both sides of these issues, and TPM should be an appropriate forum for discussing those opinions.  However, it did not take long for me to learn about the new world order here at TPM.  Time after time, I would be reading a post that I thought made some valid points, and suddenly the thread would become filled with insulting and demeaning attacks.  The general message was clear:  anyone who disagrees with Obama’s positions or actions should shut up and get over it.  If not, you are an “ideological purist” which apparently is equivalent to a Republican troll.

While these attacks may be directed at the original poster, the reality is that any reader who agrees with the post is subjected to the hostile insults as well.  It is ironic that one blogger in particular rationalizes his attacks out of concern for how criticism of Obama may be received by the large, highly-impressionable audience that he believes follows the reader posts.  If anything, I believe that the intolerant and insulting behavior that he exhibits is more damaging to his candidate than an honest difference of opinion.  But this is beside the point.  Obama is a shrewd and tough politician.  He can take care of himself without having these self-annointed watchdogs attack anyone who disagrees with him.

Unfortunately, there has been a sustained directive from some bloggers that we must support Obama unconditionally until he is elected president because any criticism can be used by the Republicans to undermine him.  After all, the only thing that matters is getting a Democrat into the White House.  Given these beliefs, I am wondering why these “rules” were not followed during the primary?  Shouldn’t the same concerns have been equally valid?  Instead, it was clearly acceptable to attack the other Democratic candidate in spite of the potential harm to the candidate and to the Democratic Party.

It is even harder to understand why these speak-no-evil Obama supporters were so critical of Hillary Clinton in the first place.  As most people acknowledge, there was little difference in the positions of the two candidates so it really came down to questions of style, character, and trust.  And with Obama’s recent shifts on issues (especially his FISA vote, his naming of Jason Furman as his economic advisor, his speech to AIPAC, his position on NAFTA, etc.), it is hard to argue that Obama is more ideologically principled than Hillary Clinton.  And please don’t say that if we had paid attention and done our research we would have known that these were always his views.  The positions that he explicitly and implicitly promoted during the primary certainly gave a different impression, which doesn’t speak well to Obama’s forthrightness.  While some supporters have recently defended Obama’s campaign pragmatism and political maneuvering, on what grounds did they so fervently oppose Hillary Clinton?  Since it was clearly not based on political principle or ideology, I can only conclude that such supporters are “Obama purists”.  Their support for Obama is not based on his actions but rather on him as a person.  In some cases, there is an almost devotional aspect to their support.

I came to support Barack Obama because of his campaign promises of change and political reform.  At the same time, my distrust of Hillary Clinton continued to grow due to her ends-justifies-the-means campaign tactics.  In other words, my support for Obama and criticism of Clinton were based on political principles, and I made this clear in my TPM reader posts.  

For example, I stated in my first post that “this election is not just about whether a Democrat or Republican wins but if the checks and balances are restored to the three branches of government. … If Hillary Clinton is willing to use lies and deceit to win the Democratic nomination, what assurances do we have that she will not continue to use them once she is president?”  In another post I wrote  “This is not to say that I will support Obama blindly since I don’t believe that any candidate should be trusted completely. … With Obama, however, there is at least the chance that he will listen to the will of the people and represent our interests.”  And after Obama became the presumptive nominee, I wrote “If Obama is elected, our society will change further only in as much as Obama lives up to our hopes and faith in him.  But this is where we must do our part. … We have to loudly and clearly make our demands heard for a more progressive agenda”.

Since I wrote these posts, my enthusiasm for Obama has been significantly dampened because of his recent actions.  However, I was clear that my support for Obama was not unconditional but was based on my faith in his campaign promises.  But faith in a candidate cannot be won through threats and bullying, as some Obama supporters would have, but rather it must be earned.  It would also be hypocritical of me to have condemned Hillary Clinton for her win-at-all-costs campaign tactics and not hold Obama up to the same standards.

However, now it is the Obama supporters who are defending the win-at-all-costs approach to politics and are attacking his critics as being “ideological purists”.  This is hypocritical, to say the least, since Obama’s primary victory was achieved through the welcome support of such “ideological purists” as the anti-war community, political / campaign finance reformists, and civil libertarians.  Moreover, the record-breaking online fundraising that propelled Obama to victory was obtained in large part from the progressive netroots and ideologically-oriented groups such as moveon.org.  However, to hear some Obama supporters spin it, those on the left who do not continue giving until it hurts are the worst type of traitors.  In reality, I do not owe Obama anything.  Rather, he owes me a debt of gratitude.  I gave more money to the Obama campaign than I have ever given to a political candidate or, for that matter, to all previous presidential candidates combined.  I voted for him in my state primary and I will vote for him in the general election.  I have been a strong and outspoken supporter, as anyone can verify by reading my posts.  But I still have the right to disagree with him.

Well, not according to some Obama supporters.  I find it disgraceful that the very groups and individuals that so greatly contributed to Obama’s primary victory are now treated as pariahs simply because they disagree with Obama’s recent positions.  There is an almost patronizing attitude that progressives should be seen but not heard, like children.  I think in reality some supporters feel that Obama is entitled to the progressive vote since we supported him in the primary, and they want us to step aside while the campaign turns its sights on the more conservative, undecided voters.  If Obama wants to court different voting constituents now, that is his right.  He is a politician.  However, progressives should not be expected to abandon their principles simply because Obama does.  Rather, the Obama campaign should respect all of our viewpoints since it will need the support of diverse communities, including progressives, to achieve victory in November.

In fact, it is unclear which political demographic is being won over with such a public repudiation of the liberal community.  Strangely, the Obama campaign seems to be willing to alienate its broad, progressive base in its effort to gain a slice of the smaller undecided vote, which seems to be reflected in Obama’s stagnating polling numbers.  And in their effort to squelch further dissent from progressives, many Obama supporters are displaying an elitism that would not seem to go over well with the typical undecided voter, even as Obama himself is trying to shake the stubborn “elitist” label.  

For example, some TPM bloggers have accused Obama critics of having no idea how Washington actually works.  Apparently, only Washington insiders can understand the complexities of our political system.  Some supporters have taken it so far as to say that only lawyers should be qualified to discuss Obama’s FISA vote!  But lawyers do not always interpret the law, or even the Constitution, in the same way.  Why else would we see such extreme division among the Supreme Court justices or the proclamations by Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo that torture is legal?  On what grounds would the ACLU be filing a FISA lawsuit?  And by logical extension, only doctors would be qualified to discuss health care issues, only scientists to discuss global warming and energy issues, etc.  In essence, some Obama supporters are suggesting that political dialogue and participatory Democracy are just too complex and intellectual for the average citizen.

There also seems to be a pervasive attitude among many TPM bloggers that they are part of an elite group of “political junkies” who are better informed and wiser than the average person.  One such self-important Obama supporter asked me in my post on impeachment, “Are you interested in real change? Or are you interested in a purity test?”  While this comment is condescending enough, he continued “Sometimes the bad guys get away clean. You've got to be able to deal with that.  It's Chinatown.  Our hope comes from the new opportunities to correct the wrongs of tomorrow, not in chasing the shadows of crimes committed yesterday.”  Such cynicism and amorality is hard to believe.  I thought our criminal justice system was all about chasing after crimes committed yesterday, but what do I know?  I am a “purist”.  However, I wonder if Obama has been given this memo.  It seems inconsistent with his recent support for the death penalty for child rapists.  Of course, maybe the blogger was only referring to criminal justice for politicians like George Bush who can “get away clean” for the killings of Iraqi children.

I have become increasingly disturbed by these types of arrogant and intolerant statements from some Obama supporters.  They have insulted the dignity of fellow Democrats by asserting that most of us aren’t qualified or wise enough to challenge Obama’s positions.  However, wisdom is not something that comes with a law degree or Washington insider status or through political blogging.  It is gained through our unique experiences, interactions, and culture.  Progressives, in particular, have a certain kind of wisdom that comes from being outside the system.  As such, the claim by some Obama supporters that progressive dissent is dangerous and naïve is really quite sad.  What progressive victory in this country would have been accomplished without popular movements and public pressure that made life uncomfortable for politicians?  I think the unfortunate reality is that the Democratic base has been a little too concerned about the comfort of our elected leaders in recent years even as those leaders have repeatedly betrayed our confidence.

I sincerely hope that these Obama zealots do not represent the views and values of the Obama campaign.  In fact, I wonder how Obama would react if he saw these things being said on his behalf.  I am not sure what Obama’s vision is for the Democratic Party and American society but I had thought that it was about bringing the people into the process and letting their voices be heard.  I do not believe that Obama is so disingenuous as to ask for public participation and input and then treat it with disdain.  I would respectfully ask Obama supporters to think about whether their views reflect those of the Obama campaign.

Last week Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. As expected, the corporate-controlled media paid little attention to this action, but it was noted in the blogosphere and generated a moderate amount of debate for a few days here at TPM. While some bloggers supported the impeachment of Bush, others opposed it for a number of mostly practical reasons.

In particular, some argued that the impeachment process would hurt the Democrats’ chances of winning the White House and Congressional seats in November. They believe that Bush, Cheney, and the other Bush administration criminals can be dealt with after Obama is in office and the Democrats have a larger majority in Congress. Until then, this just isn’t the right time. But won’t there be other important things for Obama to do if he wins the election, especially in those all-important first 100 days? Wouldn’t the American public turn against a President who said he was about change and bipartisan relationships if he spent valuable resources dealing with the crimes of a former president and his administration rather than the economy, the war, and other vital issues?

My problem with the “not the right time” argument is that it has been used for too long to give our leaders of today a free pass while passing the buck on to our leaders of tomorrow. We are expected to have blind faith that the Democrats, once elected, will take on the important issues. But there is always an upcoming election. There are always public opinion concerns. There will always be a better time.

Unfortunately, such political procrastination has contributed greatly to many of the serious problems facing our nation, besides the Iraq War. In particular, the current energy crisis could have been avoided to some degree if the issue had been dealt with more seriously starting back in the ’70s and ‘80s. But action wasn’t taken and the problems of energy policy and global climate change, which are related, will now require courage and conviction from our leaders if they are to make the necessary, but possibly politically unpopular, decisions.

If we are expecting Obama and the Congressional Democrats to have the courage to take on the big issues confronting our society, we must let them know that we will hold our leaders accountable for their actions, or lack thereof. It doesn’t seem like we are doing that, at least not in the case of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, each time we give our leaders a free pass, we make it all the harder for the next leaders to act in a responsible manner. Not only do the problems become compounded the longer we put them off but we create a precedent for inaction, making it harder to win over support from a society that has become accustomed to complacency and convenience.

Unfortunately, it isn’t going to get any easier. Big business has established a firm control over the mainstream media (due in large part to media consolidation that started under the Clinton administration) and it is able to control the message. In addition, many Republicans and Democrats in Congress act on behalf of corporate interests all too often. However, there are still a number of Democrats who, by and large, represent the people’s interests. Given this dynamic, it is vital that we support those progressive Democrats who still fight the good fight.

So why, instead, do some Democratic bloggers ridicule one of the most progressive Democrats in Congress, Dennis Kucinich? There were 22 co-sponsors of his 2007 resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney and there are currently 3 co-sponsors of the Bush impeachment resolution. Clearly, Kucinich has support from his progressive colleagues in the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, we see bloggers proposing an ultraconservative Republican such as Chuck Hagel as a possible vice presidential candidate just because he is against the Iraq War. While his current opposition may be admirable, it is worth remembering that Hagel supported the Iraq War resolution in 2002 while Kucinich opposed it (along with 125 Democratic Representatives and 21 Democratic Senators).

But that was 2002 and now, in 2008, some bloggers have implied that those who support impeachment are playing into the hands of the Republicans. But this sounds all too similar to the Bush administration’s accusations that those who opposed the Iraq War were playing into the hands of the terrorists. Aren’t we tired of having pessimistic predictions and generalized fear used as a way to get us go along, to keep us trusting in those who supposedly know better? I think FDR had a point when he said that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance”.

In fact, the greatness of this country lies in the courage of individuals throughout history who have stood up to the powerful when the stakes were the highest. Our country has been made great by the members of the early labor movement who fought to bring about the humane working conditions that we all take for granted today (although not for long). Our country has been made great by the men and women who defied Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee, many of whom lost their jobs and livelihoods after being blacklisted. Our country has been made great by individuals such as Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, and Mike Gravel, who had the tenacity to introduce them into the Congressional record. And by the honorable Vietnam veterans and Iraq veterans who have spoken out against unjust wars after experiencing the horrors firsthand. And by the courageous whistleblowers who risk their own careers and lives to expose government and corporate crime. And by the career diplomats who resigned in protest of the illegal invasion of Iraq. What if these people had said that it isn’t the right time, I don’t want to pay the personal price, let someone else do it? It is a sad commentary that our society has all too often relied on the selfless acts of public and private citizens while our elected officials stand by with their fingers to the political wind.

Indeed, while Democrats have continued to play it safe until the “next election”, George Bush has set a precedent of expanded executive power along with a total disregard for the authority of Congress. Congress has set the precedent of letting him get away with it, which does not seem to sit well with the public given its horrible approval ratings (below 20%). For too long, Democrats have behaved like codependents in an abusive relationship. They blame Bush and the Republicans for their woes but seem to be afraid to stand up to them. It is easy for us all to blame the Republicans for our country’s problems, but where were the Democrats? Why haven’t they stood unified in opposition as the Constitution has been shredded and the American people have been betrayed at the behest of corporate profiteers? And when the Democrats finally won control of Congress, why did Nancy Pelosi give Bush a free pass and take impeachment off the table?

Unfortunately, she did. But it is worth considering that there are still 7 months until Bush is out of office. Many seem to treat Bush in the past tense, as though he is no longer a threat and can be dealt with after the election. But prisoners are still being tortured and Blackwater forces are still operating above the law and Americans troops and Iraqis are still dying. We must also take seriously the persistent rhetoric about a possible attack against Iran. What if Bush uses claims of a nuclear weapons program and unstable leaders and ties to terrorists to justify such action to the American people? This is not an altogether unlikely scenario, in which case impeachment would no longer seem pointless.

Many of those arguing against impeachment also seem to assume that Obama will win the election, and this is a key factor in their logic. But, hypothetically, what if McCain were ahead in the polls by, say, 10% or more? There is still plenty of time before November for unexpected developments, especially if the above scenario involving Iran were to play out. How would Democrats feel if Bush’s “third term” was staring them in the face? Would more people support impeachment in order to establish the criminality of the Bush policies and the abuses of the Constitution so as to not let them become accepted executive privilege? Herein lies the problem. The decision to impeach a president should not be influenced by who is ahead in the polls or who is running for office or whether it is the “right time”. Impeachment should be about crimes committed against the Constitution. It should be about defending our country.

Last week I experienced emotions that I have not felt before, namely the feeling of happiness at supporting the Democratic presidential nominee.  In previous primaries, I have always supported the most progressive candidate, who eventually lost, and I then half-heartedly cast my vote for the party nominee in the general election.  But not this time.  This year will be different!

But why?  I have been thinking about the phenomenon of Barack Obama and why he has been able to galvanize such huge numbers of diverse supporters.  While credit must be given to his brilliantly run campaign and his personal charisma and style, it seems that the time was ripe for the message of “change” that Obama championed.  In fact, if we look at recent political trends and growing public sentiment, we can almost see this coming.

Going back to the Clinton administration, many progressive Democrats and independents became disillusioned with the corporate-friendly agenda and big-money insider politics.  Unfortunately, progressive voices have become increasingly marginalized within the Democratic Party machinery.  Time and again, progressive voters have been taken for granted and their concerns ignored, while moderate-to-right “Reagan Democrats”, “soccer moms”, and blue-collar “hard working” Americans are obsessively courted in swing state elections.   Over time, it becomes increasingly difficult to stay loyal to a party that needs you but doesn’t seem to want to represent you.

For these reasons, the Green Party candidacy of Ralph Nader was enticing to many progressive voters since it resonated with their disaffection with a dysfunctional political system and especially the corporate control of our government.  While some within the Democratic Party were (and are) especially hostile to the 2000 Nader candidacy, it cannot be denied that Nader’s campaign was a truly people-powered movement that brought in young people, progressives, and independents.  Nader held large “super rallies” not unlike those of Barack Obama, and the campaign survived on small, individual donations.  Even though the final vote for Nader was relatively small, support for his reform policies was actually quite broad.

So in 2004, many progressives turned to an independent-minded candidate within the Democratic Party, Howard Dean.  Dean represented a more grassroots alternative to the typical party-insider candidates, and his campaign was enthusiastically embraced by young people, independents, and those opposed to the Iraq War.  Although it was unable to sustain its early front-runner status, the Dean campaign had a significant impact on future political dynamics through its internet fundraising and netroots support.

Of course, the groundwork for the electronic networking used during the Dean campaign had already been established during the mobilization to stop the Iraq War.  Coalitions of different progressive organizations, labor movements, and religious communities joined in the effort.  Extensive networking groups were established, and internet communication made it possible to mobilize huge turnouts at several protests in DC and NYC along with numerous smaller protests in cities all across the country.   

Sadly, in spite of this popular resistance, the voices of the people were unable to stop the Iraq War, and the seeds were sown for an even deeper distrust in the government.  Certainly, the Bush administration was guilty of lying to the American people, but the Democratic Party was guilty of going along, of not fighting back, of playing politics.  Of course, many Democrats in Congress claimed that they too had been victims of the lies and if only they had known the truth!  So, in 2006, the American people overwhelmingly voted for an end to the Iraq War by giving control of Congress back to the Democrats.  Much to our dismay, however, the Democrats began making concessions before they had even taken control (“impeachment is off the table”) and, a year and a half later, the Democratically-controlled Congress has legalized warrantless wiretapping and provided telecom immunity, has endorsed aggression towards Iran, and has done nothing to end the Iraq War.  

One cannot underestimate the level of frustration that has been building among progressive Democrats as well as the population at large, as evidenced by the abysmal approval ratings of both Bush and Congress.  Given these dynamics, it seems that this current election could not have come at a better time for a reform-minded newcomer like Barack Obama and at a worse time for an establishment party VIP like Hillary Clinton.  Barack Obama appeals to the growing number of progressives and independents who are disaffected with the Democratic Party and believe that a new approach is needed.  The last thing they want is someone whose fundamental asset is experience in and deep ties to a political system that is broken.  On the other hand, Hillary Clinton appeals to many who think that the party is more or less sound but just needs an experienced insider to take charge.  There is really no middle ground between these two camps, which explains the distrust that some supporters on each side have felt for the other.  

However, it is clear that the scales have tipped in Obama’s favor with the growing popular rejection of “politics as usual”.  As such, Obama’s success is not just a mirage or due to some kind of hypnotic spell.  Obama has succeeded by responding to the emerging progressive movement and giving it a voice.  He has not created the movement, but rather the movement has “created” him.  In fact, such movements usually do not begin and end with individual leaders, but instead the leaders serve to motivate and channel the energy and will of the people.  If Obama had lost, I would have been disappointed, as always, but I would have been encouraged by the progress that his candidacy represented. I would have felt that the progressive movement was gaining strength and momentum!  

Possibly this is why the Clinton campaign has not felt like part of a larger social movement to me, in spite of its often-stated feminist theme.  Hillary’s candidacy did not evolve out of grassroots feminism but rather out of the personal identity of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton “brand”.  It in not surprising, then, that the Hillary-or-bust mentality of many of her supporters reflects a campaign centered on an individual leader rather than on broader political convictions.  Moreover, the now-or-never sentiment regarding a female president is inconsistent with the historical realities of social reform movements, which do not begin and end with each victory and defeat but rather evolve over time.  In fact, the Clinton supporters who say they will vote for John McCain cannot be true feminists since they would not defect and abandon their cause so readily.

Instead, it seems that for many Clinton supporters the campaign has become personal.   Many older women, in particular, wanted to see a female president in their own lifetimes, and so in some ways it has become about them.   But true social change is not about our own personal fulfillment, although such longings are understandable, but rather about the long-term benefits for future generations.  As Martin Luther King said so prophetically the night before his assassination:

“Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!”

While Hillary Clinton lost the nomination, the women's movement is not going to collapse because of it.  The struggle to reach the “promised land” will continue.  This is an important point for Obama supporters to keep in mind as well. The campaign of Barack Obama is not about him, the person, but rather about the potential for progressive change in this country.  Of course, his nomination as an African American IS truly historic and his election as president would be monumental.  Our society would be forever changed by the realization of a non-white president, but such a victory would not have come without the previous efforts of other men and women, such as Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson, who challenged the white political structure to be more inclusive and to focus on social justice.  If Obama is elected, our society will change further only in as much as Obama lives up to our hopes and faith in him.

But this is where we must do our part.  We cannot become complacent and self-congratulatory about his victory.  We have to loudly and clearly make our demands heard for a more progressive agenda so that both Obama and the Congressional leaders have the popular support and moral authority to stand up to corporate interests and Republican pressure. We need to advocate for, amongst others, the withdrawal of all military troops AND private military contractors from Iraq, universal (preferably single payer) health care, aggressive environmental policies to address global climate change, renewable energy development and conservation efforts, trade policies that value human rights and environmental protection over corporate profits, and investment in infrastructure and reduction in military spending.

The “change we can believe in” will only be realized through a combination of legislative reform and social action.  We must pressure Congress to pass the right laws and we must pressure the Obama administration to enforce them fully.  As such, it is up to us to speak out on issues and to make sure that our voices get heard over the corporate shills who dominate the network and cable news channels.  Obama’s legacy will always be one of breaking the color barrier to the White House, but let’s make sure it is much more than that.  Let’s work together for a legacy of meaningful progressive change that we can all thrive in for generations to come!

Clinton strategist Howard Wolfson held a conference call yesterday and was quoted in the Washington Post as saying that “current Electoral College vote predictions -- based on an aggregate of public polling -- show Clinton beating McCain and Barack Obama losing to the Arizona senator.”  The Clinton team is now using these predictions to try to persuade superdelegates to support her bid for the nomination.

From what I can gather, the Clinton campaign seems to have come up with a new metric for measuring success in the primary.  First, you use the results of polls taken in each state for the two possible November match-ups, Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain.  You then project the winner-take-all electoral college votes that each would receive assuming these polls represented the actual results in November.  The overall electoral vote “winner” is thereby argued to be more electable.

Well, this sounded questionable to me, but I decided to look at the polling data.  This was easy to do since Greg Sargent provided a link at TPM Election Central to the documents presented by the Clinton campaign to the superdelegates.  After looking at the polling data presented by the Clinton campaign, it appears to me that the Clinton analysis is on shaky ground.

First of all, the polls included in the Clinton data were taken by 15 or so different pollsters over a several month period. We have already seen during the primaries that some pollsters were better than others at accurately predicting the actual election results.  It is therefore valid to question whether the polls selected by Clinton are reliable and whether the methodologies are consistent.  For example, I noticed that Clinton used polling data from May 12-20 that show McCain leading Obama in both Virgina (+8%) and Ohio (+4%).  However, recent Survey USA polls from May 18 show Obama to be ahead of McCain in Virginia (+7%) and Ohio (+9%).  These two states alone account for 33 electoral votes so the disagreement in the Clinton polls and Survey USA polls can result in as much as a 66-vote swing in the match-up between Obama and McCain.  Which polls are accurate?  What accounts for the significant differences?  We cannot know, and that is the problem with the Clinton methodology.   More significantly, it demonstrates that drastically different electoral vote totals can be obtained depending on which polls are used.

It is also impossible to project electoral votes so far in advance in the swing states where the polling results are statistically tied or fluctuating back and forth.  For example, Michigan and Missouri are too close to call (+/- 2-3%) for either Clinton or Obama in the Clinton polling data so how does one hypothetically assign their 28 electoral votes?  Well, we see that Hillary errs on the side of Hillary.  In her count, she is awarded both Michigan and Missouri even though she is tied with McCain in the Michigan poll and ahead by just 2% in the Missouri poll.  Obama, on the other hand, is denied both states because of small 1% and 3% deficits, respectively.  It is difficult to understand how the superdelegates are supposed to accept that Obama would lose Michigan whereas Hillary would win it based on a 1% difference in their polling match up with McCain in May.  More likely, such polls would suggest that Clinton and Obama have statistically equal chance of winning or losing the state. In fact, these swing states have the potential to go either way up until the election depending on how the candidates perform and how well their messages are received.

As I was looking at Clinton’s polling data, I was also struck by the fact that many of Clinton’s loudest arguments made during the primaries could be directly refuted by her own data.   For example, the Clinton campaign made a huge deal about winning the Texas primary and, in fact, the fate of Hillary’s campaign had even been staked to it (by Bill).  Yet, the polling data shows her to be even further behind than Obama in a match up with McCain (-15% and –13%, respectively).  The Clinton campaign also argued that Hillary’s double-digit victory in Pennsylvania was reason enough to prove her electability over Obama, and yet the polling data shows that both she and Obama can beat McCain in Pennsylvania.  And in Indiana, where Hillary’s marginal victory “broke the tie”, the polling data shows that both she and Obama are significantly behind McCain (-11% and –8%, respectively).  It just shows that the Clinton campaign uses election results and polling data in one way when it serves their interests and in another way when it doesn’t.

But this is all beside the point.  Polling data DOES NOT MATTER in determining the Democratic nominee.  There is a process by which the Democratic nominee is selected and it is based on delegate count.  There are the pledged delegates from the primaries and caucuses and then there are the superdelegates that can be courted.  The pledged delegate counts are the most representative of the people’s will since they reflect the votes that were actually cast in the elections.  Yet the argument that the Clinton campaign seems to be making to the superdelegates is that (selective) polls from each state should somehow override the actual election results. 

I could almost understand their logic if they were using recent polls to show that Democratic voters in certain states no longer favored Obama even though their primary or caucus results gave him the victory.  Unfortunately, they aren’t using logic but, rather, Rove-inspired manipulation.  They are basing their argument on polls that pit the two Democratic candidates against a candidate, McCain, who they have not yet campaigned against.   The American people have not been able to hear the Democratic candidates debate McCain and contrast their positions and approaches.  In fact, most Americans know very little about McCain at this point except that he is a “maverick”.  So while more than 20 Democratic debates were held to help the Democratic voters determine their nominee, Clinton would have the superdelegates believe that polls taken in March, April, and May during a heated and competitive Democratic primary accurately reflect the general election results that will be produced in November.  This is ridiculous, especially when such polls were taken with both Democratic candidates still actively campaigning, thereby making it very likely that their supporters’ allegiances would influence the polling numbers. 

Such projected electoral vote predictions are especially unrealistic since they assume a static voter sentiment between now and November.  Even after the nominees are chosen, the polls do not necessarily reflect the final election results.  Al Gore was behind, 55%-39%, to Bush in the Aug. 11-12 Gallup poll leading up to Democratic convention, but he actually ended up winning the popular vote.  And in the 2006 Virginia senate race, George Allen enjoyed double-digit leads over Jim Webb and was so confident that he was even considering a 2008 presidential bid…but we all know about his infamous “Macaca” remark in August.  The momentum of a political race can change in either direction during a campaign, but especially as the election date draws near and the intensity increases.  And from what we’ve heard, McCain is a loose cannon!

At some point, though, we have to look at the bigger picture.  How do we rationalize the destruction of our democratic process, whereby suspect polls taken more than five months before the general election are used to override the delegate counts obtained in sanctioned state primaries and caucuses?  How do we even know that these polls reflect the true intent of Democratic and Republican voters?  There is absolutely no way to corroborate that someone will actually vote as they claim in the polls, especially given the rogue Limbaugh followers who have been creating mischief throughout the primaries.  If such polls were truly to be used to determine our nominee, they should be verifiable in some way to rule out rigging or fraud.  But how is that possible?  While Clinton supporters may feel at this point that the ends justifies the means, I wish they would think about the long-term implications not only for the Democratic party but also for the country.  After our recent stolen elections, do we really want to legitimize a non-transparent process that would make it all the easier for corrupt parties to “select” a president?











 

In a recent Café post titled “The Myth of Unity”, blogger DF invited discussion about how we can come together on the bigger issues that unite us while avoiding the divisive bickering on the smaller issues. One of the common sentiments mentioned in the ensuing thread was the need for respect and civility as we engage each other in our diversity of opinions. I most definitely agree with this sentiment.

However, I think that the issue of unity and respect goes deeper than just being good blogger “citizens”. DF brought up the point that “the Democratic party is often described as a “big tent” in that it values and pursues many dimensions of diversity.” I think a fundamental aspect of the “big tent” concept is the inclusion of diverse communities within our multi-faceted society. The “big tent” should welcome men and women, whites and minorities, straight and gay, etc. While this is an admirable goal, this diversity can cause the very tensions that seem to keep the Democratic party from actually being unified.

The Republican party has an easier time being unified because, in spite of its efforts to appear inclusive, it primarily serves the interests of the wealthy and privileged while promoting the white patriarchal social and religious values that appeal to its popular base. As we’ve seen in recent years, the Republican party has not been about elevating our society from the bottom up but about benefiting from the global race to the bottom, all the while using bigotry and hate to keep the rest of us divided. Unfortunately, we often end up taking sides within our own party rather than unifying against the source of such bigotry, the right-wing Republicans.

But even if we do unify in our antipathy towards the Republican party, the bigger issue is whether the Democratic party can live up to the “big tent” vision of inclusion and diversity. Unfortunately, it has become obvious during the Democratic primary that racism, sexism, and class division have reared their ugly heads in the interests of supporting one’s candidate. This should serve as a wake-up call that we cannot just challenge bigotry in the Republican party. We have to also challenge it within the Democratic party and within ourselves. This is easier said than done, though, since gender, race, and class identity cannot be neatly separated but rather overlap in all of us, making our personal experiences quite complex.

Sexism, in particular, is a difficult problem to tackle since men and women often have different ways of communicating. As a female, my perspective on this subject involves my experiences in very male-dominated educational and professional environments. I have seen how women are intimidated, belittled, and made to doubt their own capabilities and contributions not only by overt sexism but also by the subtle verbal and non-verbal language that is a part of the male-dominated culture. Women often don’t speak up or, even worse, try too hard to fit in. Too often, women simply leave. While my experiences are more typical of what women face in trying to advance in traditional male professions, the social pressures on women to be subservient and acquiescent is actually more damaging to the women at the bottom of the ladder who are struggling to get ahead. As an example, I canvassed for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in working-class neighborhoods of Florida in 1982 when I was in college. I was horrified at how often a woman answered the door and, when asked if she supported the ERA, would reply “Let me ask my husband”. Invariably she would return and say “No, we don’t”. Now obviously much has changed since 1982. But, then again, a lot has changed very little. We need to encourage women to have their own voice and to feel respected and valued when they do speak up so that they can be empowered to take control over their own lives.

Economic class can be another issue used to divide us by making us compete against each other for the ever-shrinking piece of the pie. In so doing, we lose sight of who the real adversary is. In my case, I was fortunate to be able to go to an ivy-league college through need-based financial aid (when it still existed), and my eyes were opened to the incredible privilege of the wealthy students there and to the different realities that we experienced. While I studied diligently in order to have options after college, the sons and daughters of corporate executives and Wall Street big wigs seemed to be majoring in social networking. I met students who had been kicked out of prep schools for drug use but still managed to get into an elite college. There were still others who seemed to have no qualifications except for being a multiple-generation legacy. The sense of entitlement and the assumption of success were prevalent.

And for a reason. Our political, business, and financial systems are dominated by too many of these ivy-league golden boys (and less often girls) who get prominent jobs and rise to the top through well-placed connections. They don’t have a clue about the little guy. Sadly, it is the little guy who gets all up in arms about “affirmative action” and “preferential treatment” when it comes to women and minorities while never questioning whether his “spot” was taken by those at the top. I don’t want to start a debate about affirmative action here but only to point out that the real beneficiaries of our system are the privileged elite who consistently get opportunities they may not deserve. As such, we have to stop blaming women and minorities for some perceived advantage and see them as being on the same side of the opportunity gap as the little guy.

More generally, we should strive to respect others while appreciating that their life experiences are different than ours. Just as I feel that men should be more sensitive to how male-oriented culture affects women, I think that white people should not have knee-jerk reactions when it comes to issues of race. I do not know what it is like to be black or Hispanic or Middle Eastern in this society, but I know that every time I go through airport security I am thankful that I am a white woman. I am thankful that I do not get followed around in stores by salespeople, or get pulled over by cops for no apparent reason while I am driving. While I do know about the difficulties that women face in a male-dominated society, I also recognize the benefits of my race. As such, I can only imagine that it is that much harder to be a person of color in the same society.

The Democratic party cannot truly be a “big tent” by only reaching out to diverse communities for short-term political gain. We need to try to develop better understanding and communication with each other so that we develop the bonds needed for long-term strength. Unfortunately, I have come to question whether TPM is such a “big tent” place for developing this understanding. Let me first say that I have read many insightful, witty, and sincere posts by different bloggers since coming here several months ago. However, it is getting to be too difficult to ignore or circumvent the bloggers who seem to be intent on being noticed with their offensive language and who subvert a meaningful discussion through ad hominem arguments. It is especially disturbing when bloggers argue with each other in a shockingly disrespectful manner and turn a thoughtful thread into a competition to be won through insults and intimidation.

For weeks, I have been wondering why they are here and what they are trying to accomplish. Now I wonder why I am here. I have been told that TPM is one of the better blog sites, and I keep assuming that I will get used to the culture. But do I want to get used to it? Why would any of us want to be treated with disrespect by those who are supposed to be fellow Democrats? As an example, a while back I overcame my reservations and submitted a post about my personal experiences and perspective as a woman and I was ridiculed by a male blogger for writing “pseudo-feminist gobbledy-gook”. The blogger even proudly acknowledged that he had “condescendingly dismissed the diarist”. This is the very kind of patronizing language that women are sick of, where men treat our opinions as having no value and act like they know better than us. In fact, this is one of the reasons why the idea of a female president appeals to so many women in the first place.

Some bloggers here take the attitude that politics is a dirty business and if you can’t take it then you should get out. But who said politics had to be so dirty? Do we have to emulate the politics of the Republican goons that came in with the Revolution of 1994 and their media minions like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly? Or the politics of Karl Rove? Have we become a society where every political discussion has to become a shouting match straight out of the O’Reilly Factor? Now, I imagine that there will be complaints about political correctness or censorship, but I would ask, in what way is your freedom to express your opinion limited by doing so in a respectful manner? And how many voices are not being heard at all because of the unwelcoming environment? While I have found the blogosphere to be an empowering medium that allows so many of us to have a voice, I am disappointed that the same dynamics are present that keep so many of us voiceless in the first place. If we can’t treat each other with respect as we try to convey our opinions and positions, what are the hopes for the realization of a “big tent” and a more inclusive, humane future?

Recently, we have heard a lot about the angst felt by supporters of Hillary Clinton now that her chances for winning the nomination are virtually impossible. One Clinton supporter was quoted in the New York Times as saying “Women felt this was their time, and this has been stolen from them.  Sexism has played a really big role in the race.”  

Many of these supporters hold Barack Obama to be responsible in some way for the gender discrimination that they feel resulted in the defeat of their candidate.  What appears to get lost in their anger and frustration is the reality that Barack Obama is not the enemy.  He did not orchestrate the sexist attacks against Hillary, and in fact he has had to endure racially-based attacks that were equally as offensive as the sexist comments and insults directed at Hillary. It almost seems surreal to me that an African American is being accused of somehow stealing the election from a woman, especially after we have seen the African American vote “stolen” in recent elections by the GOP through wrongful voter purges and other tactics.

In reality, African Americans and women have both been at great disadvantage in their quest for the White House not only due to social attitudes but also to their previous exclusion from the political power structure.  One of the biggest obstacles has been their relative absence in the US Senate and state Governorships since, in recent history, most presidential nominees have come from these offices.  Currently, there are 16 female US senators and 8 female governors, or just 16% of the total number of each.  The numbers are even more sobering for African Americans.  Barack Obama is only the third African American senator in the modern era, and only 2 African Americans have been elected as state governor.  While the under-representation of women and African Americans is obvious, the good news is that their numbers have been increasing at both the state and federal level and, in fact, several key leadership positions in the US Congress are currently held by women and African Americans.  By having more women and minorities within the political pipeline, there will be bigger and deeper pools of candidates to field in future elections.

In the case of women, there is also reason to be optimistic based on the growing number of women being elected to national leadership positions in countries throughout the world. For example, current female leaders include President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina, President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, President Tarja Halonen of Finland, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Pratibha Patil of India, President Mary McAleese of Ireland, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia, Prime Minister Helen Clark of New Zealand, and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philippines. In recent years, women have also been heads of state in Indonesia, Ireland, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, and Panama, and even Cherokee Nation was led for 10 years by its first female chief.  And then there are the most recognized female leaders of our time, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India, and Prime Minister Golda Meir of Israel.
 
This is not to say that women have equal representation and influence in the political, economic, and social spheres throughout the world, but clearly the barrier to female leadership is being knocked down slowly but surely.  In fact, the success of women elsewhere in the world may actually contribute to the frustration and sense of urgency that many women in this country feel about our own presidential situation.  If women can be elected as heads of state in countries throughout Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa, why can’t we elect one here?

Unfortunately, the rallying cries from some Clinton supporters have been sounding increasingly disingenuous given the absence of such support for recent female presidential candidates.  If, as many Clinton supporters assert, it is so critical to elect a female president now, why did Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun get so little support when she was a Democratic candidate in 2004?  In spite of her endorsements from NOW and other feminist organizations and leaders, Moseley-Braun’s polling numbers were in the low single digits when she dropped out of the race.  Since women make up more than half of the Democratic voters, it is clear that very few of them were supporting the female candidate just 4 years ago.  And what about the 2000 election?  If some Clinton supporters are willing to vote for the Republican nominee, John McCain, in this year’s general election, why didn’t they support the candidacy of Elizabeth Dole in the Republican primary in 2000?  She had to drop out of the race due to insufficient financial support in spite of her second and third place showing in polls at the time.  

It is clear that it really isn’t just about women voting for women.  It has to be the right woman.  More importantly, it has to be the right candidate, regardless of gender or color.  While I sympathize with the frustrations of older women who have been waiting a long time for a female president, many Democratic women do not feel that Hillary Clinton is the right candidate, especially due to her position on the Iraq War and her pro-business DLC influences. However, this does not mean that future female candidates will not be successful.  In fact, the stigma regarding a female president is less likely to exist among younger generations who have been exposed not only to the growing prominence of women in our own society but also to the realization of female presidents and leaders in other countries around the world.

On the other hand, we have not seen similar progress made by racial or ethnic minorities in other countries with regards to national leadership positions.  In fact, the only example of an ethnic minority head of state that comes to mind is the recent election of Evo Morales, an Aymara Indian, as president of Bolivia.  But even though Bolivia is a poor and relatively small country, the impact of this victory was felt far and wide because it demonstrated that the empowerment of indigenous people is possible.  Similarly, the election of Nelson Mandela as president of South Africa in 1994 was celebrated worldwide as an inspirational example that institutionalized racism and oppression can be overcome (although in this case Mandela was a member of a previously disenfranchised majority).

While I may be overlooking other examples, it is clear that there are very few countries today in which a member of a racial or ethnic minority community has been elected (fairly and willfully) by the population to lead the government.  For this reason, I believe that the election of Barack Obama will be a hugely important and monumental event in history because of the precedent it will set.  It will clearly be historical in this country due to our legacy of slavery and disenfranchisement of African Americans.  But think about the message it will send to the rest of the world.  If an African American can become president of the world’s only superpower, there is hope for people throughout the world who are struggling to have a voice, to have representation, to be treated with dignity. I can only smile when I think about the celebrations that are likely to take place in countries throughout the world if Obama is elected!

On a more personal level, an Obama victory wouldn’t just be about Obama.   It would be about us, the people. It would be about us, the people, sending a message to the world that, after all the war and crime committed in our name by the Bush administration, we are a better society than that.  It would be about us, the people, putting the divided past behind us and moving forward together.  If and when Obama is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20, 2009, I will not only feel incredible pride and hopefulness.  I will feel like I am a part of history.

Yesterday, Ben Smith’s blog at Politico described a group of Hillary Clinton supporters who say they’ll work actively against Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee.  They argue that Clinton has been the subject of “intense sexism” by party leaders and the media, and they say that the growing calls for Clinton to leave the race make women feel like “we’re being told to sit down, shut up, and get with the program.”

Of course, they don’t accuse Obama of sexism but apparently that is beside the point.  I guess someone has to pay for their anger.  The unfortunate reality is that both Clinton and Obama have had to deal with hateful bigotry during the campaign, and there are people who will not vote for each of them because of their gender or color. 

However, I reject the premise that the calls for Hillary to leave the race are based on her gender.  She is losing the race based on delegate count, and her only chance is coup by superdelegate.  I especially reject the presumption of this group of Clinton supporters to speak on behalf of women about how we feel about the race.  I am a woman who has been a feminist my entire adult life, and my decision to not support Clinton is based on her actions, especially her Iraq War vote and her aggressive stance toward Iran.  Even so, if Clinton had shown herself to be a reflective person capable of reassessing her positions, I might have thought differently of her.  

Instead, the longer the Democratic primary goes on, the more concerned I become about Hillary Clinton’s intransigence with regards to the Democratic nomination.  I understand that many of her supporters admire her for her fighting spirit and her willingness to play hardball, and she certainly must be admired for her fortitude and conviction.  But at some point, this “never say never” mentality is something to be questioned rather than applauded.

Haven’t we learned from our experience with George W. Bush that an absolute unwavering resolve in the face of all facts and reason may not be a good thing?  Frankly, I see an alarming similarity between Hillary Clinton’s determination to “win” the Democratic nomination and George W. Bush’s determination to “win” the war in Iraq:

1.  Both Clinton and Bush do not seem to be able to accept defeat because they are both convinced of their moral superiority. They even acknowledge that they are driven by a higher cause.  In Clinton’s case, she KNOWS that she is the better candidate and the only one who can defeat the Republicans in the fall.  As such, she must do whatever it takes to save the party from the hypnotic fog that has blinded the Democratic voters to the inexperience and emptiness of the Obama candidacy.  In the case of Bush, we all know about his absolute belief in the righteousness of the Iraq War.  He is the messenger of God who must continue the fight against the evil doers who hate us for our freedom.  It doesn’t matter how the war is going or how many Americans or Iraqis have died, the war is necessary to save us from some vaguely-defined but ever-present danger.

2.  Both Clinton and Bush have continued to change the metrics that define success as their crusades have faltered.  In Clinton’s case, her campaign has presented ever changing and creative methods for determining how victory should be measured.  First, it was the big states that mattered, then the blue states, then the working-class states, then the popular vote, then it was really a Republican-style winner-take-all model, then it was up to the super-delegates, and finally is appears to be an electability issue based on polls and selective demographics.  In Bush’s case, the reasons to go to war were first WMDs, then Saddam Hussein and his al-Qaeda connections, then freedom for the Iraqis, then to destroy terrorism, then to make sure that American servicemen and women had not died in vain, then…well, it doesn’t matter.  It will be the next president’s problem.  

3.  Both Clinton and Bush approach their ongoing battles with an “us vs them” mentality.  Clinton defectors are portrayed by her surrogates as traitors or guilty of betrayal (i.e. Bill Richardson, NARAL).  And when Clinton was pushing her proposal for a gas tax holiday, she told her fellow members of Congress that you are either “with us or against us”.  Aren’t we all tired of such rhetoric after years of hearing it come from Bush and his strongmen?  In order to silence dissent in the lead up to war, the American people and the rest of the world were given the ultimatum that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.  Such talk has continued ever since as a way to discredit critics and to promote nationalistic “unity”.

At a time when George Bush is widely disliked and distrusted, why has Hillary Clinton been emulating his political style and demonstrating a rules-don’t-apply-to-me attitude that is suggestive of Bush’s assertion of expanded executive power?  I find such similarities to be troubling and, in fact, Clinton’s behavior during the past several months has been a strong factor in my increasing support for Barack Obama.  Obama was not my first or even second choice at the beginning of the primary, but his respectful, inclusive, and inspiring message in the face of Clinton’s increasingly un-democratic and hostile campaign tactics has made me feel that Obama is the right choice for the country.  This is not to say that I will support Obama blindly since I don’t believe that any candidate should be trusted completely.  There are too many pressures from the ever-present lobbyists and the big-money special interests.  With Obama, however, there is at least the chance that he will listen to the will of the people and represent our interests.  With Clinton, this doesn’t appear likely.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters had better be careful what they wish for.  If, by some remote chance, she were to succeed in winning the Democratic nomination through her increasingly direct appeal to racial bias, she will have endorsed a campaign strategy that can be used against her as well. This is because it would be all too easy to turn the racially-divisive tactics used against Obama into equivalent gender-based attacks against women.

But how did it come to this?  The primary race between Clinton and Obama was supposed to be an historic moment for the Democratic Party and the country.  For the first time, a woman or an African American would be on the presidential ballot in November and very likely in the White House in January!  But something went wrong.  When the Clinton campaign found itself in trouble after Super Tuesday, with no real game plan, the sense of entitlement felt by Hillary and some of her supporters led them to adopt the tactics usually employed by Republicans and other conservative interests.  Abandoning any pretense of feminist values, Hillary Clinton has shown that she relates more to the white-male power structure, whose sense of entitlement and privilege is at the very core of its opposition to equal rights for women and minorities, than she does to the Obama campaign that is trying to break down the barriers to the White House.   

This is not to say that many Clinton supporters are not sincerely motivated in their desire to elect a female president.  It is just that the Clinton campaign and some of its supporters seem to have lost sight of the reasons why a woman or African American has never been elected president.  We’ve seen Hillary praise the qualifications of the anti-abortion Republican John McCain in her quest to defeat her pro-choice Democratic rival.  And instead of educating the voters on issues affecting women in this country, Hillary has made nice with the right-wing media interests that routinely attack feminism and women’s rights issues.  

During the self-serving truce between Clinton and her former enemies (i.e , the vast right-wing conspirators), the media has focused primarily on Obama and the issue of race.  However, if Hillary were to win the nomination, it is naïve to believe that the right-wing media would not come after her as ferociously as it has against Obama.  I mean, these are people who use terms such as “feminazi” and  “baby killer”.  The problem for Hillary would be that she would have no moral authority to condemn the use of such tactics because she has essentially endorsed a campaign strategy based on bigotry.  It would be all too easy to turn the table and use the same tactics on Hillary that were used on Obama.  In fact, because racism and sexism are two sides of the same coin, it often just requires replacing “black” with “woman”.  A few examples are:

1.  Hillary Wouldn’t Be Where She Is If She Weren’t A Woman
It would be all too easy to for Hillary (or any woman) to be attacked by right-wing pundits and political “experts” making claims similar to those made by Geraldine Ferraro about Obama.  In fact, this is nothing new.  The accomplishments and qualifications of women are routinely dismissed as being the result of preferential treatment or affirmative action.  The reason this tactic is so effective is because it is cheap and easy.  The accuser doesn’t have to prove anything because the very claim is designed to tap into the resentment and bias that many men feel about women taking the jobs and opportunities that they feel entitled to.  It should not be underestimated how effective and damaging this line of attack can be during our growing economic recession when many men, especially the very blue-collar, lower-educated white men whose support Hillary has sought, are losing their jobs and are anxious about how to support their families.  

2.  Feminists Are Extremist and Hate America
The non-stop coverage of selected video clips of Rev. Wright has been especially damaging to Obama because they took Wright’s words out of context to portray him as extremist, un-American, and anti-white.  It would not be difficult to use the same tactics against Hillary, especially since she is supported by feminist icons such as Gloria Steinem and national leaders of NOW.  For those familiar with feminist theory, it would not be unusual to hear a feminist leader or scholar speaking about the oppression of the patriarchy or denouncing the use of violence to dominate women.  By taking such messages out of context, it would be easy to portray feminists as being just as extremist as Rev. Wright.  Of course, the right-wing punditry would have a field day with such statements (especially if they had video clips) and would dictate the terms of the discussion to keep Hillary on the defensive:  Does Hillary agree with these feminists?  Do feminists hate men?  Why has she associated with such radicals who are against the American family and the American social structure?  If Hillary renounces and rejects the feminist community, she risks alienating the older women who make up her base of support.  If she does not reject them, she is forced to discuss the complex issues of sexism and discrimination in an environment that is hostile to the principles of women’s rights and gender equality.  Sound familiar?

3.  Women Are Too Weak and Emotional To Be President
These attitudes are unfortunately ever present but have not yet made their way into the mainstream media coverage.  This is partly because Clinton and the conservative media have kept the political dialogue focused on race rather than gender.  But Hillary knows these attitudes are out there and it is clear that she has been taking pre-emptive measures to refute them.  Unfortunately, she has not spoken out on the inherent strength of women and the attributes that make them well suited to lead the country.  Instead, she has been attempting to prove in increasingly desperate ways that she is in fact more masculine than Obama!  While Obama is portrayed as the effete arugula-eating intellectual who is all talk but no action, Hillary drinks shots of whiskey, went shooting with her father, and has dodged sniper fire.  According to her surrogates, she is the working-class fighter with “testicular fortitude”, the female Rocky Balboa.  In fact, Hillary “makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy”!  Hillary is the she-man who even has the “extra cojones” that the wimpy Obama is so dearly in need of.  And she’s learned from George Bush that being presidential means never having to admit to mistakes, so why should Hillary have to apologize for her Iraq War vote?  Anyway, those Iraqis need to take care of themselves now because Hillary has some obliterating to do in Iran.
 
Is this the female president that we have been waiting for?  How has her campaign advanced the interests of women in this country?  While Hillary has been trying to prove how tough and working-class she is, she has actually been perpetuating the sexist perceptions that have hindered women’s progress for so long, especially in politics.  Women shouldn’t have to be action figures to succeed in a man’s world.  Rather, we need female candidates with the inner strength to take on the complexities of sexism in our society in the same way that Obama has tried to address the racial divide.  

If nothing else, this primary has made it clear that racism and sexism are still very much misunderstood within society at large.  Even here at TPM, many Clinton supporters have denounced the sexist and misogynist attacks against Hillary while taking offense at the criticism of Clinton’s race-baiting tactics against Obama.  Some of them even feel justified in denying that racism is a problem in this country.  Unfortunately, the same denials exist with regards to sexism, and I have seen cases where even well-intentioned men do not see gender bias or harassment when it is present.  

Given these social dynamics, both Clinton and Obama have been faced with the daunting challenge of gaining broad popular support within a hostile political climate fueled by conservative bigots.  Sadly, Hillary made the choice to stand with the bigots for short-term political gain, but in doing so she has failed both her female and African American constituencies.  For example, Hillary chose to publicly repudiate Rev. Wright and Barack Obama’s association with him while remaining silent on the anti-feminist positions of right-wing religious supporters of John McCain and the Republican Party such as John Hagee and Jerry Falwell (who blamed the Sept. 11 attacks in part on abortionists, feminists, and lesbians).  Hillary needs to be reminded that it is the religious and political conservatives who support the very patriarchal structure that the feminist movement has been striving to change.  This system will not change by trying to join their club.

I have been troubled by Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics for a while now, and I have had a hard time understanding how her supporters could defend them as an acceptable political strategy against a fellow Democrat.  I am especially disturbed that her supporters can tolerate the intensifying racial attacks against Barack Obama.  I wish that all Democrats would step back and see how the divisive attacks against Obama really benefit the Republican Party and the conservative agenda that has moved this country in such a dangerous direction. 

Throughout the campaign, Obama has been targeted by the media with racist and inflammatory claims of being a Muslim, a terrorist, a traitor, or some variation on this theme.  Even if you are a Clinton supporter and feel that she has been harshly treated by the media and her opponents, the nature of the attacks on Obama have been fundamentally more damaging and dangerous, especially in  post-9/11 America.  While it is true that Hillary must contend with the sexist attitudes that still exist in our society, Obama must contend not only with the racism that is part of our country’s legacy but now the all-out media blitz that has turned the primary into a white vs black referendum.

While the origins of the most egregious attacks may not be known (although some may have their suspicions), it is clear that the attacks have been perpetuated and amplified with alarming intensity by right-wing media groups aligned with the Republican party and conservative business interests.  Unfortunately, the increasingly tabloid nature of cable news has led to a bandwagon effect where every network jumps in with the same non-stop coverage.  This is especially true in the case of Rev. Wright and the sensationalizing of his remarks and his relationship with Barack Obama.  Now some people may feel justified in condemning Wright and thereby condemn Obama for his long-standing association with his minister, but they should not turn a blind eye to the racist, hateful motivations for the attacks in the first place. If it were truly about the beliefs of religious leaders associated with the candidates, there would be equal coverage about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Doug Coe and The Family and John McCain’s embrace of John Hagee.  In reality, the attacks on Wright and Obama are not about religious views or church affiliations but about making white voters uncomfortable and even frightened by a black culture that they do not understand.

It is a shame that there has been no effort to place the religious philosophy of Liberation Theology espoused by Rev. Wright into a larger historical context so that the white community could understand it better.  In fact, Liberation Theology is not unique to the Black Church, although it probably has its own version, but is also practiced in the Catholic Church as a philosophy for bringing justice to the poor and oppressed.  It is especially strong in Latin America where the indigenous people have been exploited and persecuted by military dictatorships (who are often supported by the US Government), and it is not uncommon for Catholic priests and nuns to be tortured and murdered by paramilitary death squads.  Given the history of slavery in our own country, it us not surprising that Black Churches and their spiritual leaders would play an important role in the ongoing struggle for justice by African Americans. Their efforts should be respected by the Democratic Party and its members rather than feared and attacked as the Republican Party and other right-wing groups are attempting to do through the assault on Rev. Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ.

Of course, this strategy has paid off and the persistence of the Wright coverage and the other racist attacks on Obama has had a noticeable effect on the attitudes of that ever-critical lower-income white voter that Hillary is targeting (and that the Republicans often win).  These voters have been told for months that Obama is a dangerous black man with dangerous friends and especially a scary black pastor.  Unfortunately, these messages are all too effective at tapping into the racial distrust that is lurking just below the surface of many white people.

But what is the foundation for this fear of black people by so many white people?  If anything, history shows that it is black people who have every reason to be fearful and distrustful of white people.  Even after slavery was abolished after a 250-year span, generation after generation of African Americans has had to endure the discrimination and degradation inflicted on them by white society.  Especially in the South, African Americans have been the victims of terrorists who still operate today such as the KKK and other white supremacist groups and individuals (consider recent events such as the dragging death of James Byrd).  Yet how did the African American community deal with their struggle for civil rights? With unbelievable courage, dignity, and humanity.  They organized and boycotted and marched and lobbied until white America was forced to take notice.  Did they resort to widespread violence and retaliation against white people?  No.

Regardless, many white people are still afraid of black people because the media and right-wing political leaders have told them for so long that they should be through propaganda tactics (such as the Willie Horton ad) and selective media coverage that often dehumanizes black people as violent criminals.  An especially influential source of such fear-mongering is the Republican Party, especially now that it has absorbed all of the former Dixiecrats. In fact, some Republican leaders in Southern states still proudly display the Confederation flag that not only stands for slavery in many peoples’ eyes but also the violent attempt to secede from the Union.  So who are the “traitors” and the ones who do not love America?  African Americans, who have spoken out against oppression and injustice in this country?  Or the right-wing Republican leaders and their media mouthpieces like Sean Hannity, who associate with white supremacist hatemongers?  It is worth noting that white supremacists and religious fanatics have not only targeted blacks and other minorities but they have also carried out the greatest acts of domestic terrorism in the country including the Oklahoma City bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing.

In spite of these facts, the media reveals its hypocrisy when it puts a magnifying glass on Rev. Wright and Obama while allowing bigots like Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, and Pat Buchanan to judge and condemn them as racist and un-American!  And it’s not just Wright that they fixate on.  Obama has been declared guilty by association for sitting on a board with William Ayers, a former member of the Weatherman whose related activities occurred when Obama was just a child.  In contrast, the media not only overlooks John McCain’s numerous gaffes and his own associations with radical religious figures but even makes excuses and provides explanations on his behalf!  Similarly during the previous presidential elections, the media seemed to accept that George W. Bush’s lost years in his 20s and 30s due to alcohol and drug abuse could be wiped cleaned simply because he was “born again”.   So who does the media portray as less trustworthy to the American people?  A black man who joins a respected African American church and by all accounts has led an honest, compassionate, and faithful life? Or a white man whose spiritual conversion occurred during a single encounter with a counterculture evangelical preacher and who has since heard voices from God that tell him what to do?

Sadly, the right-wing media has fabricated issues to exaggerate a racial divide in the country that serves the interests of the right-wing political establishment. However, there doesn’t have to be a racial divide in this country, even in Southern and Appalachian regions where Obama has had his biggest problem with white voters.  For example, I attended a rally and march in 1998 in Nelsonville Ohio that was led by Jesse Jackson and Jerry Falwell to address the persistent problems of poverty in Appalachia.  A number of white labor leaders talked about how Jackson had been such a true and loyal friend of union workers over the years, and even Falwell said that he and Jackson had a long-standing mutual respect.  It saddens me to see that the good works of black religious leaders like Jackson and Wright are often ignored while their isolated comments are selectively distorted and misinterpreted so shamefully to further divide the electorate.

This is representative of the larger, more insidious process by which our history continues to be rewritten by politicians and the media in such a way to allow white America to forget our country’s historical acts of aggression against African Americans (and Native Americans and Japanese Americans and …) and to even view the very victims of such aggression as being somehow responsible for their own plight. As such, it is easy to use propaganda to convince people that they should fear and hate any group that has grievances with them.  The Bush administration was doing nothing new when it used fear and bigotry after 9/11 to get the American people to support the Iraq War (although it is telling that African Americans as a group were strongly against it).  The same tactic has been used in this country in the past against immigrant groups and in particular by leaders in the South who exploited racial fear and hate to get white people to accept Jim Crow laws as necessary for their own well being.  This fear tactic is still being used today to disenfranchise African Americans but now it occurs through incarceration as evidenced by the disproportionate number of African Americans in prison and the disproportionately harsh sentences imposed on them.

In order to move forward with respect to our national problem with race, we must stop rewriting history to downplay or even deny the brutalities and injustices committed against African Americans.  While it is true that African Americans must help themselves, as many would argue, it is dangerous to make such arguments without acknowledging the systematic disadvantages that have been perpetuated at every level by their earlier discrimination.  This only creates the impression that in some way African Americans are inferior or lazy or want preferential treatment.  This problem is not unique to African Americans. For example, women face similar problems is overcoming gender-based discrimination.  As one example, arguments continue to be made about the innate inferiority of women in the areas of science and math (most recently and perhaps most famously by Harvard University President Lawrence Summers) by selectively pointing to their continued problems while ignoring the barriers that continue to thwart their progress.  Sadly, this argument is also being used by many of our current political leaders with regards to the Iraq War by claiming that the Iraqi people need to take control of their own problems rather than rely on the US for support, while completely ignoring how the utter devastation of the country’s infrastructure by the US invasion and the ensuing anarchy and internal terrorism has made it impossible for them to succeed.  We must stop blaming victims for their own plight without being honest about the responsibility we hold for their problems.

It is time for Democrats to show their appreciation for the unrivaled loyalty of African Americans to the party and to reject the the racist campaign tactics that are polarizing the country.  Do we want the Democratic Party to pander to conservative white voters and alienate the loyal African American constituency, possibly for years to come, for some short-term political gains?   If so, then the Democratic party would not only lose African American support but also the support of progressive and independent-minded voters who will either not participate or will join 3rd parties.  Being short-sighted for political gain is very dangerous and can lead to irreversible changes in our social and political fabric. This time, we must not fall for the divide-and-conquer tactics of the Republican Party and its supporters that have hurt progressive movements for so long.

In the past week, there has been a renewed discussion about whether Democratic candidates should boycott FOX News because of its long and successful record of attacking Democratic politicians and progressive leaders while promoting right wing bigotry and propaganda.  The outrage among some of the liberal blogosphere against Barack Obama was especially strong after his appearance on the Sunday Fox news program with Chris Wallace.  

While I am an Obama supporter, I personally disagreed with his decision to go on Fox and I am not going to defend it.  However, I accept his position that he is willing to meet with his enemies as well as his friends.  So in that context he did not “take Fox on” as TPM's Greg Sargent had been led to believe. As a result, Greg had a column on April 27 titled “Obama Doesn’t “Take Fox On”, After All” in which he seemed to be quite indignant about Obama’s non-confrontational performance.  Said Greg,

“at no point did he draw attention to Fox's spreading of lies about him or critique the network in a general sense.”

Given that TPM was among the blog sites that made an issue of Obama’s appearance, I was quite disgusted when I opened up TPM Election Central and saw that all 6 polls shown in the current poll tracker are from FOX News!  Why in the world is TPM legitimizing FOX News by presenting their poll results? 

It’s not as if TPM doesn’t have enough polls to choose from.  In fact, the large number of widely varying daily polls is becoming quite annoying, along with TPM's increasingly selective HEADLINES splashed across the front page that announce these polls as if they are breaking news.

In my opinion, TPM should be more selective in the polls that it chooses to include in its poll tracker and especially it should verify the objectivity of the polling organizations.  While polls can be quite useful, they can also be used to manipulate the public perception.  FOX News is not an objective or credible organization and TPM loses credibility when it includes their polls in its poll tracker.

Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist Geoffrey Garin recently said that Barack Obama's comments about small-town America

“would be "damaging" to him in a general election, could set back the Democratic Party's efforts to reach heartland voters, and should be something that super-delegates consider when deciding whom to support.  These are the kinds of attitudes that have created a gulf between Democrats and lots of small-town and heartland voters that we've been working very, very hard to bridge."

Is this the same Clinton campaign that publicly ridiculed and dismissed the relevance of small-town American states during Hillary’s string of losses in January and February?   Are the “small town and heartland” voters in Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Kansas and Nebraska not as important as the small-town voters of Pennsylvania?  The characterization made by Geoffrey Garin is hypocritical beyond belief and the only thing more appalling is the readiness of the mainstream media to accept such statements as fact.  In reality, it is Hillary who has damaged her chances in the general election with her condescending treatment of states that she did not win, and even Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa has spoken publicly of his resentment at the way his state was belittled by Hillary.  In contrast to Hillary’s approach, Obama’s 50-state campaign has been actively trying to connect with voters in small towns and communities all across the nation, not just in the select states that are deemed important for delegate votes.

Why doesn’t the media comment on the discrepancy between Hillary’s words and her actions?  Maybe the media could ask the Clinton campaign to clarify exactly what they have been doing to bridge this gulf with small-town voters, as they claim, and what part of Hillary’s 35 years of experience were directed at such activity.  Was it her 15 years as a corporate lawyer serving the interests of powerful banks and corporations?  Was it her years on the board of directors of Walmart?  Is it her past support of NAFTA and Bill Clinton’s ongoing support of such free trade agreements?  Unfortunately, the media does not do the job it is supposed to do but rather acts as a mouthpiece for the Clinton campaign’s accusations and complaints.

John McCain’s campaign also jumped into the fray and called Obama’s comments elitist and condescending.  But why hasn’t the media scrutinized statements by John McCain that reveal a detachment towards American voters?  For example, John McCain recently explained his earlier opposition to the MLK holiday as simply a matter of his not having been aware of the “issue” of MLK (and by extension the Civil Rights movement) at the time.  He rationalized that he was part of the military, which he claimed to be the “greatest equal-opportunity employer in the nation” (a claim which warrants scrutiny in itself), and therefore we are to believe that he was in some way insulated from the societal turmoil regarding civil rights.  Unfortunately this explanation was accepted with little questioning by the media, but it demonstrates a shocking disconnect with American society.  John McCain was in his 20s and 30s during the Civil Rights movement and he was 47 years old when he voted against MLK Day.  If, by his own admission, he was out of touch with such important social and legal issues as civil rights over so many years, how can he connect with voters and deal with the ongoing social problems facing this country?

Clinton and McCain are clearly trying to exploit Obama’s recent comments to manipulate the emotions of small-town, mostly-white voters whom they consider to be their critical base.  But why are Clinton and McCain being allowed to dictate the terms of the election?  Why are small-town voters the only ones that seem to matter?  In reality, there are many segments of American society that are hurting and frustrated by years of government neglect and corporate greed, including:
• Inner city communities that have suffered from continuing cuts in critical infrastructure and social services, resulting in growing rates of unemployment, poverty, crime, and incarceration.
• Minority communities that have been victimized by decades of environmental racism, resulting in high levels of sickness, disease, and economic loss.
•  The diaspora of displaced Hurricane Katrina victims that cannot return home due to lack of available housing even while perfectly sound public housing is being destroyed to make room for a newer “whiter” New Orleans.
•  Military families that must cope with the care of severely injured or traumatized veterans with shockingly little support from government or military services. 
•  Young people throughout the nation who will be paying the price, literally, for years to come for a bloated war budget and ever increasing national debt.
•  Family farmers whose livelihoods and way of life are being destroyed by the dominance of big agribusiness, soaring fuel prices, and lack of affordable credit.

While the vast majority of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, the media is all too happy to distract and divide the public with such diversions as Obama’s “gaffe”.  This is not surprising since the mainstream media (and especially right-wing media such as FOX news) are owned and controlled by corporate entities that directly benefit from the very policies that have contributed to the economic and social hardships of most Americans.  From the defense contractors and oil companies that benefit from our protracted wars to the prison industrial complex that benefits from the failed War on Drugs and the exploding prison population to the banking industry that has benefited from the growing consumer debt, the American people have paid a steep price for policies that serve the corporate interests over the public welfare. 

Rather than speak out against these corporate powers and the corporate media that promote their interests, Hillary and Bill Clinton have been all to eager to cozy up to Rupert Murdoch and FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, and even Richard Mellon Scaife.  Apparently believing that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, Hillary and her surrogates have repeatedly worked through these right-wing media groups to attack Barack Obama.  However, in doing so, Hillary is implicitly validating and endorsing the credibility and legitimacy of these media groups that serve up a steady diet of corporate and government propaganda, tabloid journalism, and right-wing bigotry.

In some ways, the Clintons’ exploitation of such corporate media should not be a surprise since President Clinton supported and signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that started the explosion of media consolidation.  The Clinton policies promoted deregulation of the media, which led to greater corporate control of the news and information being fed to the public.  Hillary has been trying to use the corporate media to control the dialogue throughout the primary, but in doing so she has joined forces with the same corporate entities that have decimated our social fabric by the downsizing and outsourcing of jobs in the quest for record profits and that have mortgaged the future of the country with ruthless war profiteering.  This makes Hillary’s posturing about trying to bridge the gulf with small-town voters all the more hypocritical and shameful.

The observation of the 40th anniversary of MLK’s death has made me think about the profound effect of his speeches and words.   Recently, Hillary Clinton has derided the value of speeches as compared to actions, and this seems to be an appropriate time to reconsider this attitude.  I am too young to have heard MLK’s speeches at the time, but I have read them and heard them re-broadcast on Democracy Now!/Pacifica Radio.  They still have the same relevance and urgency as they did more than 40 years ago, especially his seminal speech against the Vietnam War a year before his death and his prophetic “Mountaintop” speech given to striking sanitation workers in Memphis the night before his death.   

In reflecting on MLK over the past several days, it made me think that the impact of speeches and words can oftentimes not be assessed until many years later.  In fact, some of the most influential orators and writers have been shunned by society during their own lifetimes because of their radical ideas or critical messages.  Even MLK, who in today’s society has been reduced to a feel-good icon who “had a dream”, had been attacked by the media and mainstream society after his anti-Vietnam War speech.  It appears that society can be somewhat hypocritical in that we expect our leaders to put forth great ideas that at the same time are appealing and palatable to the masses.  In reality, great ideas often challenge the attitudes of society and require some degree of critical self-examination.  

So with this in mind, what is the significance of Barack Obama’s antiwar speech in 2002 and his recent speech on race?  The response to Barack Obama’s recent speech has been widely divergent, from being praised as profoundly important by some to being dismissed (by Hillary Clinton and others) as being empty words that mean nothing without action. It is certainly true that actions are important, especially since policy positions and legislative initiatives are the basis for enacting change in our society.  But what inspires the policy positions?  What can motivate society as a whole to think in a different way, to accept new solutions to our problems?  Oftentimes the messages expressed in writings and speeches are the catalysts for social movements that eventually force legislative action.  This dynamic has had a strong impact on our own American history and society.  

Let’s consider first the words of Thomas Jefferson in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence: 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all  men are created equal…”

While these words are truly enlightened and in many ways represent the ideals of our American democracy, it is important to remember that this concept of equality was not codified into law in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and so, in some sense, they are just words.  However, these words have inspired the continuing struggle for equal rights in this country, and only after sustained social resistance and even civil war has fundamental progress been achieved through the passage of later Amendments to the Constitution.  Thanks to the words of Thomas Jefferson, our citizenry does not accept a subservient, second-class status that is implicit in a monarchy, oligarchy, or other non-democratic society.  At the core of our national identity is the belief that we are all endowed with the same fundamental rights within our society, even though the struggle to make these rights protected under law is an ongoing effort.

Let’s also consider the essay on Civil Disobedience that was written by Henry David Thoreau in 1849.  Thoreau was part of a literary community in Concord Massachusetts that was involved in the abolitionist movement and other pacifist societies.  He was certainly not a public leader or mainstream figure of the time.  Yet, the impact of his essay on civil disobedience became monumental in the next century when Gandhi was inspired by these principles and later used them to help overthrow British colonial rule in India.  Later still, these words by Thoreau would inspire MLK to fight a non-violent campaign against the white power structure of segregation, discrimination and oppression in this country.  It has reached the point where civil disobedience is now one of the standard techniques used by protest movements throughout the world, yet the power of these words could not possibly have been envisioned by Thoreau at the time he wrote them.

These are just two examples that teach us that the inspirational power of words should not be underestimated.  Jefferson’s words on equality inspired the struggle against slavery, which inspired Thoreau’s philosophy of civil disobedience.  This in turn inspired Gandhi, whose success inspired MLK, whose message inspired numerous independence movements in Africa, and so on.  Words that speak to the principles of human dignity and social justice are universal.  They empower us in a fundamental way and they should not be trivialized.  While I am in no way comparing Obama’s speeches to these two examples, I do believe that critics who dismiss them as nothing more than empty words are displaying a shortsightedness and a poverty of spirit.  People’s lives can be fundamentally changed when they are challenged to look at things differently, and especially when they are inspired to choose a life with value and purpose.  Politics today has frequently become a soulless and self-serving enterprise, consisting of selling your platform and yourself to the public while attacking your opponent in any way possible.  However, time and again we have seen campaign promises broken once the election is over, leaving people cynical and distrustful of their leaders.  It would seem that these words of “action” are ultimately emptier and more meaningless than those given in a speech that inspires personal reflection and societal change.

Several recent posts on TPM have inspired me to consider the reasons why Hillary Clinton’s supporters think so highly of her and so poorly of Barack Obama.  Polls have indicated that the most loyal Hillary supporters are older women, in particular white women, and it would therefore seem that gender and race play an important role in their positions.  While gender and race have in fact been prominent topics in the Democratic primary, I do not think that female support for Hillary is based on simple gender identification or simple racism but rather on a generational experience surrounding these issues.  

First let me emphasize that both racism and sexism still exist in this country and as such should not be dismissed by supporters of either candidate. Through my own personal experiences, I can testify to the insidious and persistent problem of sexism. These experiences have allowed me to see the world from the perspective of the feminist movement that so strongly supports Hillary.  At the same time, my generational response to these experiences has led me to identify not with the Hillary candidacy but rather with the themes promoted by the Obama campaign.

In my case, I was fortunate to enter college in the late ‘70s at a time when increased academic opportunities were opening up to women due to the passage of Title IX.  I decided to study physics, but I quickly discovered that sexist attitudes were still firmly entrenched in the academic world.   From my first physics class to my present job, a male-dominated and male-oriented culture has been present that places women at a significant disadvantage.  My worst experiences were in graduate school, however, where female students were often made to feel inferior and unwelcome by male students and professors alike. I also had the misfortune of joining a research group in which I was harassed for several years by a male student.  The trauma of the harassment was secondary, however, to the betrayal I felt from my research advisor who held me to be equally responsible for not learning to deal with the “cultural differences”.  I believe that such blame-the-victim experiences are not at all uncommon, and in fact we saw the same attitudes being displayed on the national scene when Anita Hill was vilified by male senators during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

So why am I not a Hillary supporter if I have had such personal experiences with sexism?  Shouldn’t I believe that electing a women president would help end such attitudes and behavior?  Actually no, because first of all I understand that my experiences are not limited to women.  While there are very few women in physics, for example, there are even fewer traditional minorities in the field.  Racism and sexism are two sides of the same coin.  In fact, I was quite distressed when Geraldine Ferraro declared that Obama would not be where he is today if he were not black, especially since I have had the same thing said to me but with the word “black” replaced by “woman”.   I felt an utter disbelief that a woman would say such a thing when women should know all too well how it feels to be dismissed and marginalized in that way.  

However, I realize now that the issue is not just about race or gender but also about generation.  Older women and African Americans who were on the front lines of the equal rights and civil rights battles have a different life experience than the rest of us, as Obama mentioned in his speech, but they also have a different mind set.  They had to be single-minded, fearless, and totally dedicated to their cause.  Possibly for this reason, there was not a lot of crossover activism between movements (and even Martin Luther King Jr. was pressured from within his own circles to not expand into the anti-war effort).  While fundamental and significant victories were achieved on both fronts, women and African Americans know from experience that the battle is not over but has just changed in scale and scope, and thus the champions of the movements carry on.  This is reflected in Geraldine Ferraro’s views that the endorsements of Obama by high profile delegates such as Chris Dodd and John Lewis are just the case of men sticking together.  Gloria Steinem has also joined in the fray by claiming that it is harder for women to be elected than for black men.  Of course, in reality it is a disadvantage to be black or female in this society, and it is not useful to pit one group against the other.  Unfortunately, Ferraro and Steinem are representative of the generation of women who do not see beyond the gender lines that have defined them for so long.

It is no surprise then that many of Hillary’s staunchest supporters come from this earlier generation of the women’s movement, with Hillary’s campaign representing the ultimate realization of their goals:  a female president.  This overshadows even Hillary herself, who does not appear to have been a leader in the women’s movement and does not seem to be especially feminist in her positions.  She put her own political ambitions on hold to follow her husband in his political career, and even put up with his serial philandering while doing so. While I do not judge her for her decisions, I am disturbed, however, by the sense of entitlement that is expressed by her supporters that it is now Hillary’s time, as if something is owed to her.  What has she done that we should consider her the heir apparent to the office of the president?  I have found the unquestioning devotion of women’s groups to Hillary, both now and since the Clinton presidency, to be rather surprising since Hillary does not represent the feminist role model that inspired my generation of women.  It is more likely that she connects with older women who may have felt the societal pressures to put their own aspirations aside for the sake of their husbands and families and who see themselves in Hillary.

If Hillary represents the political champion of this generation of women, it is not surprising that Obama appears to them to be a mirage, someone who does not represent anything real.  He is not iconic in the way that Hillary is.  However, for the same reasons that Hillary does not connect with me, Obama has emerged as a candidate whom I can relate to.  Maybe this is because I am the same age as Obama and, like him, we grew up in the ‘60s and ‘70s.  As such, we were part of the first generation that was able to enter into adulthood with options that had been made possible by the civil rights and equal rights movements of those times.  Our generation did not have to break open the doors of access and opportunity (although we had to push hard to keep them open), and so we did not have to be so single-minded in our views.  Possibly for this reason, I have found my involvement in women’s groups such as NOW to be unsatisfying and uninspiring in spite of my strong feminist views.  I had particular difficulty with the narrow focus of the women’s agenda and, in many cases, the disconnect of this agenda from greater social issues such as culture, race, and poverty that impact many women’s lives.  This lack of connectedness has continued into the present where we see that the key progressive movements of this decade, namely the anti-globalization and anti-war efforts, are noticeably lacking in any significant participation from traditional women’s rights organizations (as opposed to the newer breed of women’s groups such as Code Pink).

It would seem then that there is a generational divide that results in quite different attitudes among women, even those who are deeply committed to gender equality.  I believe that problems of sexism, racism, and social injustice cannot be solved independently of each other, and for this reason I feel a connection with Barack Obama and his message of unity and change.  The older women who support Hillary may dismiss Obama’s message as just empty words that have no substance to them.  This may be true to them because they have been looking at the world through a gender-based lens for so long.  Even now as Hillary’s chances for the nomination are being acknowledged by the media as almost impossible, groups such as Emily’s List are dumping money into her Pennsylvania campaign and female supporters are blaming the male-dominated political system for Hillary’s downfall.  While their desperate efforts to sustain Hillary’s candidacy are becoming increasingly negative, Obama’s message strikes a resonance with me and many others who are trying to figure how we can live together in a society that has emerged out of the civil rights and women’s rights movements and who’s future is built on their foundation of equality and respect for all.

It must be frustrating and disappointing for presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards to witness the meteoric rise of Barack Obama to front runner status in the Democratic primary race, especially if they had thought that it was their time to lead the party. While I sympathize with their situation, I do not have patience for the empty and self-serving criticisms of Obama that we continue to hear from them and their advisors and surrogates. Namely, charges are flung around like fact that Obama is not tough enough or is all talk and no action or in some way did not earn his success. But what do these statements even mean? They appear to be cheap shots made by poor losers who are already anticipating their next run for office.

To place my comments in context, I am a relatively recent supporter of Obama, having initially supported candidates who didn’t stand a chance (Kucinich) or who dropped out of the race (Edwards). In general, I support candidates because of their positions and voting records and not because of their personalities, and so I don’t get too caught up in the hype about a candidate. As such, I have been able to watch this campaign unfold without the emotional investment that many others have made in their chosen candidate. Consequently, my annoyance with these criticisms of Obama is not due to my personal attachment to him but rather to their blatantly undemocratic and manipulative nature.

Even as the candidates talk endlessly about their patriotism, their attacks on Obama’s qualifications completely fly in the face of one of the cornerstones of the American Dream, namely the belief that anyone can grow up to be president. Apparently this is not true according to Hillary Clinton and others who have declared that Barack Obama is in some way not fit for the office. While John Edwards has not directly criticized Obama since suspending his campaign, a former Edwards advisor said in a March 21 Politico article that Edwards has concerns about Obama’s “strength and experience and readiness for the fight.” It is hard to take this seriously when in fact it was Edwards who dropped out of the race when the going got tough. At the same time, he approves of Hillary’s “toughness, and experience in life, making difficult decisions.” Given the destructive nature of Hillary’s battles and the strength of character that Obama has displayed during the recent Wright controversy, it leads one to question Edwards’ judgment in the first place.

In the case of Hillary, it is disingenuous to hear her say that Obama does not have enough experience to be president when in reality she has only four more years of Senate experience but four fewer years of total legislative service than Obama. More broadly, in touting her 35 years of experience, she does not elaborate on how her twelve years as first lady of Arkansas or her years on the Board of Directors of Walmart (among others) somehow contribute to her presidential qualifications. It is infuriating to hear her recite the 80 countries she has visited and imply that such extensive travel is somehow required experience for future commanders-in-chief. If this were so, it would seem that only former ambassadors and other high-level diplomats and cabinet members would be eligible to run for president. The way Hillary talks about her commander-in-chief qualifications, you would think that she will be personally directing the troops deployed around the world instead of conferring with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals, Admirals, and other military leaders like any other president would do. This emphasis on commander-in-chief is getting especially ridiculous when Hillary states that the country needs a commander-in-chief for the economy!

Unfortunately, this kind of campaign rhetoric hurts us all because it diverts the conversation away from the real issues at stake, such as Iraq, the economy, health care, energy and environment policy, etc., and instead focuses the public’s attention on some artificial mystique surrounding the person of the President. There is no foundation for such posturing, however, since the Constitution does not impose any such stringent threshold for being president or commander in chief. In fact, the only requirement is to be at least 35 years of age and a natural born citizen! The ridiculous thresholds put forth by Hillary and her supporters are moreover against the spirit of a government that is “of the people, by the people, for the people,” as put forward by Abraham Lincoln. While there are those who would say that those are just words from a speech, those words are an important reminder that we need to not only choose a president with excellent character and good judgment but also one who can identify with and serve the interests of all the people living in this country.

The results of the March 25 PPP poll in North Carolina show that Barack Obama currently holds a commanding lead over Hillary Clinton. However, another finding in the poll may have relevance to the primary race outside of North Carolina. Specifically, the second question in the poll asks: “If John Edwards endorsed Hillary Clinton, would it make you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, or would it not make a difference?” The results are somewhat surprising: 12% would be more likely to vote for Clinton while 31% percent would be less likely to vote for Clinton, with 57% saying it would make no difference. Even though John Edwards is from North Carolina, it appears that his endorsement of Clinton is viewed relatively unfavorably by North Carolina voters. Note: The poll did not ask a similar question about an Edwards endorsement of Obama so we cannot compare the results.

The fact that an endorsement by Edwards would have such an unexpected negative effect raises questions about the public’s evolving view of uncommitted superdelegates, especially given the increasingly divisive and damaging campaign rhetoric. The poll results may indicate that other voters share my feelings of disappointment in Edwards’ lack of leadership and conviction, and therefore attach a negative association to his endorsement of Clinton. With regards to my own view, I recently emailed a letter to John Edwards that is included below.

This recent poll also gives food for thought for uncommitted superdelegates to consider as they wait to make their endorsements, especially if they are elected officials. If they are waiting for a politically “safe” time to announce, there may political ramifications depending on the political leanings and demographic make-up of their district.

Dear Mr. Edwards,

I am writing to express my deepest concerns about the destructive battle going on in the Democratic primary race and the damaging effect it may have on the future of the party and, more importantly, on the progressive values that I believe in.

I was a strong supporter of yours and donated to your campaign while you were still running. I was disappointed when you suspended your race but I respected your decision to do what was best for the unity of the party. I was initially undecided about who to support following your suspension but I gradually came to believe that Barack Obama can take us away from the "politics as usual" that has made the public cynical and apathetic about the political system in this country.

At the same time, I have been outraged and horrified by the growing attacks made by the Clinton campaign on Obama and his supporters. Not only have they been extremely harmful to the unity of the party but they are providing ammunition for the Republican party to use in the general election against either of the possible Democratic nominees.

Needless to say, I have been waiting for the Democratic Party leadership to stand up and take a stand against this kind of short-sighted, self-serving behavior. In particular, I have been expecting you to provide leadership on this issue. Your concern with the "two Americas" (one poor and one wealthy) is one of the primary reasons why I supported your vision for the future. However, how can one talk about poverty in the country without being honest about the effects of racism, discrimination, and bigotry of all types. While Barack Obama has spoken to the country in a profoundly honest way to try to confront these problems, the Clinton campaign has been using racist charges and divisive appeals to pit one group against another in her quest to win primary votes.

Poverty exists in every state in the country, and every needy American deserves to be respected and counted. However, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly made statements dismissing the significance of voters who live in states that voted for Obama, and in particular the significance of Democratic voters who live in “Red” states. This shows a shocking insensitivity to the plight of those loyal Democratic voters, many of whom are unfortunately among the poorest and most neglected segments of society. Study after study shows that states in the deep South and other red-leaning states with large populations of African Americans, Native Americans, and Mexican Americans rank highest in extreme poverty, lowest education, and poorest health. The problems of poverty cannot be truly addressed in this country by appealing only to the voters who “count” in the convoluted electoral primary system. Even more, it cannot be done by invoking themes of racial animosity, suspicion, and distrust in order to court these voters.

I am sorry to say this but my respect for your candidacy has greatly diminished with your continuing silence. I believe that you have a moral obligation to speak out against this type of un-American and anti-Democratic behavior. If worse still you are trying to keep the door open for a cabinet position in a possible Clinton administration, I would have to feel that you have betrayed your loyal and dedicated supporters.

Please take a stand and support Barack Obama so that the party can move forward before further damage is done. The Clinton campaign appears to be willing to do anything that will bring them political advantage, even at the expense of the Democratic Party. The Obama campaign has mobilized large numbers of young voters as well as independents who can grow the Democratic Party base for years to come. I am convinced that the destruction of the Obama candidacy would not only result in the loss of these new voters in this election cycle but in future elections as well. Once real-life experiences have produced cynicism, it is difficult to become idealistic again!

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. I sincerely hope that you will speak up on behalf of all Americans and in particular the Democratic voters who are being marginalized, insulted, and belittled by the Clinton campaign rhetoric.