Barack Obama as our first Asian American President?: Part I

It has been two months since I last wrote a post in this blog--which is embarrassing (sigh).  For all my good intentions, I have not felt compelled to write in this space, even though I, ostensibly, have the time since I'm not teaching.

But this is, perhaps, the reason why I haven't been writing in this space--because I have been immersed in trying to finish my book manuscript on racial ambiguity and Asian American culture (which also happens to be the title of the book).  I'm fortunate enough to have a research and study leave, which means I've been reading and thinking and writing and trying to make the most of my time out of the classroom.

And then, of course, as I realized how much time had passed from when I last blogged, the pressure to write something meaningful or at least intelligible increased after so much silence (sigh)--always the dilemma of the writer--the blank page and wondering if there is an audience out there.

But as I tell my students, sometimes, whether you're feeling it or not, you just have to write it.  Good advice.  So I thought I should share what I'm working on, since it has applicability to this blog.  For the last few weeks I've been thinking about the coda to my book--which is also the title of this blog post.  If race is a social construction--if it doesn't have a basis in biology or blood, then could we imagine that Barack Obama is not only our first African American president, our first (openly) mixed race president, but our first Asian American president of the United States?

Barack Obama with his sister Maya Soetoro-Ng from their earlier days

This might seem like an odd way to end a book on racial ambiguity and Asian American culture.  Yet if we think about taking the idea of racial ambiguity to its furthest extremes, if race is not just limited to what you "look" like--if you can be Asian American without Asian American family (as transracial adoptees would seem to prove), if one's racial identity is as much about culture and community as anything else, then it would seem that there are clear markers of Asian American racialization that correspond to Obama's life narrative.  For example:

*He was born and spent his formative adolescent years in the only state in the union that has a majority Asian American population.  The local culture in Hawaii is steeped in Asian American culture from the various Asian immigrants who have come to the island archipelago from the 19th C.  He can speak pidgin, he eats local food, he grew up with his grandparents preparing sashimi for guests and with Asian American neighbors and classmates.

Obama's fifth-grade class photo from The Punahou School

*He is the child of an immigrant father who came to the US to be educated (first, a BA at U of Hawaii and then a PhD at Harvard), and his name reflects these immigrant roots, with people who find it odd, foreign, and hard to pronounce (something many children of Asian immigrants with Asian names understand all too well).

*He lived for four years in Indonesia (from the ages of 6-10) thus experiencing life in an Asian country.

*He has family members--a sister (Maya Soetoro-Ng--Indonesian-white), a brother-in-law (Konrad Ng--Chinese-Malaysian from Canada) and nieces who are Indonesian-Chinese-Malaysian-white--who are Asian American.

The Soetoro-Ng family

In October 1998, writing for The New Yorker's "Talk of the Town" about the ways that President Bill Clinton was being targeted by special prosecuters for potential impeachment after revelations of his affair with Monica Lewinsky became public, Toni Morrison famously (or infamously) wrote:

Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.

Until Barack Obama was elected to office in 2008, it was believed, in certain quarters, that Morrison had claimed blackness for Bill Clinton, thus dubbing him our first black president.  But if you read the above quote (and the entire article) carefully, you will see that it is the "trope of blackness" that Morrison refers to rather than claiming that Clinton's identity is that of an African American man.

In similar fashion, claims for Barack Obama as our first Asian American president have been made by Rep. Mike Honda and Jeff Yang -- mine is not the first observation made in this regard.  

Yet what does it MEAN for me to imagine, that Barack Obama could be considered Asian American based on the trope of Asian-ness--the ways in which parts of his life narrative contain similarities to those of Asians in America?  Is this an anti-racist move, one that can remind us that race is a fiction, a social construction designed to elevate one racial group above others?  Can knowing that race is this fluid and flexible become a means to dismantle structures of institutional racism?

Stay tuned for Part II (which I promise to write this weekend!) and, of course, if there are any readers out there, I welcome your thoughts and comments, your agreements and disagreements.  I welcome dialogue, because that's the reason I started this blog to begin with--and Barack Obama was the topic of the third blog post I wrote back in May 2007.

60 Minutes & President-elect Barack Obama

If you have 40 minutes to spare, check out the interview below:


Watch CBS Videos Online

York, PA -- what say yee?

I'm listening to NPR on-line through my old favorite station in the Bay Area, KQED (Thank you live streaming! Thank you Applie iTunes!). And I just finished listening to this series that Morning Edition's Steve Inskeep and Michele Norris have been doing in York, PA (because I guess they figured York, PA was representative of "real" Americans living in a swing state).

At any rate, their conversation has touched on the issues I was writing about in yesterday's post "Mutts-R-Us" (for the edited transcript and a link to listening to this piece, click here).

But what I was really interested in, was a discussion that the voters had about a letter to the editor in their local paper in which a writer complained about Barack Obama's self-identification as a "black" man. The letter writer noted that no other U.S. President self-identified as a "white" man and goes on to accuse Obama for placing undue importance on his "race," and THEN goes on to accuse Obama of being blind to his mixed-race status:

"Where does he come off saying he's a black man?" The letter asked. "Is he that confused on color, or does he want to discredit his mother's color as a white person?"

[NOTE: The letter writer is correct, in one way: no other U.S. President has probably self-identified in a self-conscious way as a "white" man--and there's a reason for this: white privilege. In other words, "race" has been used as a code of "difference"--with the "normative" established as both "white" and "male" throughout much of U.S. history. In other words, who got counted and who continues to be counted, by many, as an unqualified "person" is a white man (and I may as well add "straight" white man). Anyone outside this category, by virtue of gender, sexuality, race, religion, ethnicity, class, etc... is noted with the "hyphen"--literally or figuratively. What the letter writer does not understand or acknowledge is this long history of white privilege in terms of basic subjectivity. Of course Obama identifies,publicly, as a black man and of course President Bush does not identify, verbally and continuously, as a white man. This is how our society has reinforced how we SHOULD identify.]

The responses of the York, PA folk, is also very interesting--and insightful:

That provocative letter started the voters in the group wondering what was really on its author's mind. Maribel Burgos, 46, who's Hispanic, thinks the letter writer, presumably white, was seeking what Orr had finally found: a sense of inclusion.

"They want [Obama] to now acknowledge the white part of him, so that they're now included in his administration, too," Burgos says.

And that, of course, has had me thinking. Because there is virtually NO ONE in national politics who "looks" like me or who "identifies" as me. There isn't a single Asian American, man or woman, on the Supreme Court bench. There is only ONE Asian American (Elaine Chow) in the upper echelon of the Executive Branch (she's the Secretary of Labor--and I'm not a fan, but that's another story and has to do with her silver-spoon pedigree and Republican ideology). And there are a HANDFUL of Asian American Congressional figures, and I believe just one Asian American governor (that'd be Republican wunderkid Bobby Jindal).

So. Do I feel alienated from the U.S. government? Should I play up Obama's upbringing in Hawaii (over 60% majority Asian American population) and his mixed-race Indonesian sister to feel like he is "one of us" (with "us" being Asian Americans).

My personal answer is no. Don't get me wrong. I want more representation in our government--I think it should LOOK like America, and America is much more diverse than any of the three branches of government currently reflect. But just because Obama isn't an Asian American woman doesn't mean I don't believe that he can't be my president. And his identifying as "black" or "mixed-race" doesn't make me feel alienated. It makes me feel PROUD, especially knowing the long and troubled history of race in America, that he is unashamed to talk about himself in the complex ways in which he is figured, racially and not.

Which West Wing--fact or fantasy?

I found a cafe with wifi here in CT (Thank you "Brew") and couldn't resist blogging about a New York Times article that talks about the fictional West Wing and the current election we have going on, especially because David Axelrod (Obama's chief strategist) was contacted by one of the head writers for The West Wing in 2004 when they were developing the character of Matt Santos, a non-white, "minority" senator with a mixed-race family background who is going head to head against his Republican challenger, a senior senator from a Western state who is known for telling it like it is.

[click here for the article]


[That's Arnie Vinick (Alan Alda), Josh Lyman (Bradley Whitford), and Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits) on the campaign trail]

For those of you who aren't West Wing fans, I can only tell you that the parallels are downright eerie. And I didn't even KNOW about the Phillies connection.

I only hope that our current election has as happy an ending as the fictional one (albeit without the tragedy of the V.P.--but they had to build that in since actor John Spencer did die in the middle of the series).

THAT One...what did he mean?

So yesterday was the second presidential debate--this time in a "town hall" format. Tom Brokaw was the debate moderator and the picture below shows the post-debate "thank yous" between the two candidates, their wives, and Tom.


In the post-debate spin, there's been a unanimous belief that Barack Obama "won" and that it wasn't a "game changer" for McCain, which he needed it to be given the fact that he is down in the polls.

But the question I want to pose for you in the blogosphere has to do with the comment that McCain made when he referred to Senator Obama as "THAT one":

Here's how it was described by a New York Times article:

In a moment that suggested Mr. McCain’s impatience with his opponent, he described the differences between the two candidates on energy policy.

“By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary of this back and forth: there was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate, loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney,” he said. “You know who voted for it? You might never know.”

He cast his arm at Mr. Obama. “That one,” he said. “You know who voted against it? Me.”

In the MSNBC post-debate discussion, Chris Matthews and two talking heads (whom I can't recall right now) dissected the "THAT one" moment, with one politico noting how unfortunate that phrase was since McCain should have been more aware that gesturing at Obama and using this phrase in the dismissive manner that he did would hit some people the wrong way (ie: McCain is going to look like a racist, although the dreaded "R" word never came up in the politico's commentary).

Matthews and the other talking head dismissed the racial/racist overtones, and declared that his snideness was a result of his age rather than any inherent racism.

And actually, I agree. Or rather, I wouldn't be too quick to say that this particular snide instance was an example of McCain trying to be "racist." Dismissive? Yes. Condescending? Definitely. Deliberately meant to be a put down of Obama? Absolutely. A veiled racist phrase? Harder to interpret. McCain's no dummy--he's not about to use coded racial language during a televised debate in front of million of voters. This is NOT the time to start calling his opponent Barack HUSSEIN Obama (which IS in my opinion, a racist reference to Obama's Muslim heritage--so every time one of McCain's surrogates refers to Barack HUSSEIN Obama, it's really meant to remind everyone, HEY boys and girls, this guy has the same middle name as a deposed Muslim despot).

And I think it IS important to distinguish between real coded racist language versus snide remarks that could be interpreted as racist but may be an instance of just plain old condescension. Now. Let me also add this. I think it was stupid. I mean, really, stupid. Because of how easily McCain's comments CAN be interpreted as racist. And honestly, even though I don't *think* it is an instance of coded racist language, there's a part of me that really wonders...

For a pretty funny dissection of the phrase "THAT one" head over to this site, where you can also see a clip of McCain making this remark--see for yourself and weigh in on what YOU think about "THAT one."

Post convention thoughts

I teach in an English department. I know the power of narrative, how persuasive the right combination of words can be. And I study popular culture and am aware of the strength of certain images and symbols. Politics, to a large degree, is about rhetoric and spin: it is about persuasion.

A LOT has been written about Sarah Palin, about what she does and doesn't do for the Republican ticket, about her being a heart beat away from the presidency and what her selection says about McCain's judgment in choosing her.

I was going to do an entire post about Sarah Palin and about the RNC, and comparing the RNC to the DNC, but there are so many other bloggers and media outlets who have already done this work (I'll embed some links within my post--it's nice, because essentially these posts are ones I would have written, perhaps in a different style/format, but they tackle the topics I would have tackled).

What I want to end the week with now, and the two solid weeks of being glued, alternately, to CSPAN, CNN, and MSNBC, are a few thoughts about what I would like to see happen (I know this probably *won't* happen, but I thought I'd try to be hopeful and stay positive, because there's just TOO MUCH NEGATIVITY, and I'm tired of the sniping).

*I would like to see an end to coded racist language against the Obama family, in particular, and African Americans, in general. I'd like to see an end to coded racist language against all people, but the truth is, in my opinion, African Americans get the brunt of this more than other racial groups in the U.S. The word "uppity" should only be used, in a vernacular fashion, to refer to objects that are placed beyond someone's reach, as in "Can you please grab that book for me? It's too uppity for me to get it." The word "uppity" SHOULD NOT be applied to a U.S. Senator who is also the Democratic candidate running for President, and by the way, is the first African American representing a major political party, as in this quote by Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland:

"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said. Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”

*I would like to see an end to people equating Islam with terrorism or Muslim culture/references with Islamic terrorism. Here's a choice quote from another U.S. congressman:

"Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name – Hussein – is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, 'Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."

*I would like both parties held accountable for telling the truth, about themselves and about their opponents. A great website to check out is FactCheck.org, which keeps track of both parties and holds both campaigns accountable for their misleading statements or outright lies.

And while The Daily Show is probably not as unbiased as the above site, their juxtaposition of key political figures and pundits is worth noting as we move forward in the final push to November 4:



*I do think that the families and particularly the children of politicians and public figures should be off limits. At the same time, I think that political candidates should not try to make political hay out of their children.

*I think people should be more respectful in their critique of Sarah Palin. Although I find the Republican call of "sexism" a bit hard to swallow in light of the treatment that Hillary Clinton has received during the last year and a half (and really the last twelve years because she got a lot of disrespect based on gender during the Clinton administration), I do think that there's quite a bit of sexist rhetoric, especially in the blogosphere. And if people want to critique Palin, they can do so without using sexist language. Critiquing her, just like critiquing any of her male peers, is fair game--having unfair gender expectations of her, is not.

*I would like people to recognize that women, just like men, are complex creatures. And that just because you are a woman does not mean that you can speak for all women or are in favor of what, politically, we refer to as "women's rights." Same thing goes for being African American--Barack Obama does not speak on behalf of all African Americans. He does not "represent" black American. He is not running for president of the American "black diaspora." He is running to be President of the United States.

*Having said that, I wish people would start to recognize the pervasiveness of racism and racist thought in this country--or perhaps conversely, how difficult it is to recognize white privilege and white supremacist thought. Notice I didn't say "racist people"--Jay Smooth already covered this a few months back. But I've had numerous conversations with friends who have older white parents who are struggling with their internalized racism--these are older white Democrats who have never voted Republican and don't plan to vote for McCain, but they balk at voting for a black man because the picture of Barack Obama and his family is NOT the picture they have of a first family. These are not bad people--and they have raised children who are liberal and progressive minded.

But really--THIS is the reason I teach what I teach, why I focus my research on race, and why I started a blog called Mixed Race America. Race is such a pervasive part of American culture/society/history/politics. It's large and amorphous, fluid and flexible. No one is ever "right" about race, and just when you think you've figured everything out, something changes, something happens, something erupts to blow your previous theory and conceptions, of race, right out of the water.

*And really, what it all boils down to, for me, about Obama and his historic candidacy and the issue of race are two lines from a Pat Parker poem:

"For the White Person who Wants to Know How to Be My Friend"
The first thing you do is to forget that i'm Black.
Second, you must never forget that i'm Black.

Labor Day Links

In honor of labor day, I am going to be linking to other bloggers and posts that I think are relevant to what is going on in today's world (like Gustav, the Democratic convention last week, McCain's VP bomb) and just posts I thought might be of interest to readers of this blog.

Hopefully those of you reading this in the U.S. (where Labor Day is an official holiday) are enjoying a day of lazy respite from your normal work routine. Or if you are an academic type like myself, then perhaps you have a pile of reading on your desk that you hope to get through (a re-reading of Crevecoeur, a glimpse into Deleuze & Guattari, skimming over some racial melancholia, and for pleasure, my umpteenth re-reading of Persuasion for a grad seminar).

*I often feel like Tami of What Tami Said and I are separated at birth, sisters in the blogosphere. Her post "What we deserve (A Rant, I know)" summarizes much of how I feel about PUMAs (Party United My Ass), the splinter group formed out of disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters (whose numbers, I hope dropped radically after both Hillary's speech and McCain's announcement of Sarah Palin--more on that below). She wrote this before the roll call vote, which you can see in the post she wrote following the one above.

*Tenured Radical, a wonderful writer (and fine academic) has a great post that talks about the importance of Obama's acceptance speech, and is inspiring in its analysis of Obama and what he stands for as much as the actual speech itself. And she follows this up with two posts about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his VP, asking "Is Sarah Palin Good for Women?" (and I know you might have a knee-jerk one-word response but take the time to read this post) and another on the conservative response to McCain's pick (click here).

*Another blog I like a lot, Poplicks, also has two posts about McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin, with more links in their comments section to other sites dissecting the (il)logic/pandering/disastrousness of this selection. Miss AK-47 and this other post with an interesting comment thread by a PUMA member weighing in, Women: Putting the "Wild" in Wild Card, gives us a glimpse into what people (esp. liberal-progressive folks) are thinking about the choice of Sarah Palin (and yes, I'll be writing my own rant later in the week).

*Poplicks also has a post about the path of Gustav and the effect that this is having on the RNC and McCain--and speculating on the political opportunism of McCain delivering his acceptance speech in New Orleans in the wake of Gustav (sentiments that are echoed by Paul Krugman's Op-Ed in The New York Times).

*The LPGA recently issued a rule (should I add asinine?) that all players must be conversant in English to play on the tour--a ruling that seems to specifically target a single ethnic-national group: South Koreans. For more, see the Constructivist's take here, as well as my own length comment(s) and thoughts by Angry Asian Man here and here.

*Finally, for something to satisfy your appetites beyond the political, Land of the Not-So-Calm has posted a recipe for chop ch'ae, a Korean noodle dish that makes me salivate (and the photo she includes will make you salivate too). Her posting made me think that I should do some kind of recipe swap with readers/bloggers where we share tried and true meals with one another (because I'm always looking to expand my cooking repertoire).

Re: T.G.I.F.: Barack Obama & Politics

I've been glued to C-SPAN and the commentaries on CNN and MSNBC all week. I've been blogging all week about the Democratic National Convention in Denver. I've been anxious about the speeches and how things would unfold with Hillary Clinton and her supporters, Bill Clinton's remarks, the roll call, Joe Biden's speech, and then finally the culmination of Barack Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco field.

And last night Obama gave a speech that was a rhetorical tour-de-force.


He spoke to over 75,000 people in the stadium and millions upon millions around not only the U.S. but around the world. And what dawned on me as I once again had tears in my eyes, was how incredible it was for Obama, his family, his supporters, the Democratic party, and OUR NATION to get to this point.

THIS is The Great Impossible Feat. What is "THIS"? There's so many things in "THIS":

*Obama's rise from delivering a rousing and inspiring speech at the 2004 DNC where he hadn't yet even been elected to the U.S. senate to four years later accepting the nomination for president in 2008.

*Obama's background: his mixed-race background, his working-class background, his childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia, his extended family in the U.S. and in Kenya (and around the globe), and the choices he has made in his professional and personal life.

*Obama as our first non-white, first African American candidate for a major party. Again, in terms of "history," 45 years ago people marched on Washington to shed light on the need for Civil Rights. Segregation and institutional racism was rampant. The idea that we would have an African American president was something found in Science Fiction and not The New York Times. The idea that the image below would and in fact *COULD* be our first family was unfathomable. And yet...45 years later, here they are:


*Finally, what "THIS" is, is a sea change. It's large numbers of people, mass numbers of people, getting involved in politics FOR THE FIRST TIME. On a personal note, for the first time I got involved in a presidential race in my own very small, very minor way, by knocking on doors and registering people to vote. Others have been much more active and vocal than I have, but what we all share is a desire to get involved in the political process because we are inspired to do so. Whether that inspiration comes out of fear and anxiety that we do NOT want more Republican mis-leadership or whether it's from the inspiration of Barack Obama and his platform, the simple truth is that people are TRYING to make a DIFFERENCE this election. People are getting involved and showing up and doing something as basic as registering people to vote and talking candidly and with conviction about why they are supporting Obama and why we want to take the country in a direction that is positive and progressive.


And THIS is T.G.I.F.: The Great Impossible Feat. That people are trying to make a difference, are taking seriously the rhetoric that what is supposed to make our country "great," that distinguishes our government as a "democracy" from other forms of government, is that people, average citizens, can take part in the election process. Even if it is as simple as casting a ballot. But sometimes it's the simplest acts that are also the greatest ones.

Making History

Almost every news outlet has noted the historic nature of this date, August 28, both for today and 45 years ago.


[August 28, 1963 -- March on Washington for Civil Rights]

And tonight, in Denver, CO, Barack Obama will accept his party's nomination to be the Democratic Presidential candidate for 2008.


[The convention is moving to Invesco field where they estimate more than 70,000 will be in attendance]

I think it would be easy to think that in a blog post titled "Making History" that I'm talking about Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama as the ones who are making history.


[Obama at a campaign stop in Texas]

But these are just two men, albeit two effective and inspiring leaders. But still, they are just two men. However, what you need to look at are the crowds. Look at the people who gathered on the Washington mall 45 years ago. And look at the crowds gathered in the rain in Texas.

Although there's a 45 year gap, the crowds are remarkably similar in their attentive focus, in their diversity, and in the conviction and desire of these people to gather together to make history. Because history doesn't get made by individuals alone. History is made through completely mundane acts, such as someone taking the time to show up and listen to a civil rights leader speak in our nation's capital. Or a U.S. citizen taking the time to become a delegate and to attend the DNC in Denver. Or for an average American on November 4 to get in his/her car or walk to her/his local polling station and casting a vote.

Maybe history books won't record the average person who goes to the polling booth. But it's important to remember that neither Martin Luther King Jr. nor Barack Obama would be making history if it weren't for the millions of people who helped to make history happen in their own small ways.

Symbols count

I have just finished watching the roll call at the DNC and the choreography of Illinois "passing" when it was their turn to vote, then New Mexico "yielding" their votes to Illinois, and then when it bounced back to Illinois they, in turn, yielded to New York (the state that follows, alphabetically, to New Mexico) at which point, the New York delegation, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, took the stage and asked the convention leadership to break with procedure, to cease the roll call and declare by acclimation that Senator Barack Obama would be the unanimous candidate representing the Democratic Party in the 2008 Presidential election.


And Nancy Pelosi took the stage to ask for a motion, and a second, and a vote, which I admit was actually not a "real" vote since Pelosi glossed over the "nay" section after an ear-splitting round of "Ayes!" to announce that Barack Obama would, indeed, be the presidential candidate.

And I found myself once again in tears, actually openly crying. Because, as I told "Southern Man" (who is here watching the DNC with me) I just never thought this day would come. I never thought that I'd see a non-white candidate, an African American candidate, win the nomination for president of a major party. Actually, I always assumed that if I were alive to see this day, it would be the Republican party who would be nominating someone like Colin Powell or Clarence Thomas. I didn't think it would be the Democratic party, my party, who would nominate someone whose platforms and values I actually respect and believe in.


And I was crying because this picture above--this could be our first family.

[Right now MSNBC is interviewing John Lewis, a major figure in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and he's talking about the monumental nature of this moment and the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement in Obama's candidacy]

I know that symbols can be too easily deconstructed and dismissed. I make my bread and butter through tearing apart language and images in literary texts. My training in the academy has been to be suspicious and cynical of easy symbols and overly sentimental narratives.

And yet here I am crying at the realization that our nation has nominated an African American man to be the presidential nominee and that WE COULD HAVE OUR FIRST NON-WHITE, AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.

And that symbolism is powerful. It sends a message of progress. It tells me that while we aren't moving as fast or as far as I would personally like, we are moving ahead. We are trying to do things better. And it sends a message to a lot of others that our idea of who counts as a leader, who counts as president of one of the most powerful nations on this planet--that this face and the symbolism of electing, specifically, an African American man--that this is powerful. This is history. This is hope.

Over a year ago I spent a weekend reading through the websites of John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama trying to decide which candidate I wanted to support in order to take back the White House and end 8 years of Republican mis-leadership. I wanted to put my vote and my faith behind a candidate I truly believed in. I chose Barack Obama in many ways because his narrative was one that resonated with me--his story, the story of race in America, was one that I understood all too well. And the symbolism of Barack Obama and his family is inspiring--of Michelle, Malia, and Sasha, but also of his grandmother, his sister, and his nieces and nephews and siblings and uncles and aunts in the U.S. and around the world: a vision of mixed race that isn't just part of America but part of a new global order. And this symbolism is so powerful. This symbolism gives me hope that this country, which I have often had a cynical and pessimistic attitude towards, and the Democratic party, which I have often lamented over the lack of leadership, that at this very moment I feel proud. Proud of my party. Proud of my country. And giddy and anxious over the possibility that THIS could be the picture of our next first family:

Obambiden: the Democratic ticket

Barack Obama is in Denver this week to claim his right to represent the Democratic ticket (and damn it, did he earn it!) for his presidential bid, historic many would say. And after months of speculation he has announced his running mate.


He has chosen, but has he chosen wisely?

I honestly don't know, so the Monday morning question is: what do you think of Senator Joe Biden as

*Vice President
*Obama's running mate
*being a heart beat away from the presidency
*racially (in)sensitive (After all, this is the same guy who said that you couldn't go in a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts without hearing people with at least a slight Indian accent. If you look at the clip on YouTube, it's clear that Biden "meant well" but being well intentioned doesn't mitigate the insensitivity of the remark, and how much he missed the mark, because he was approached by a young Indian American man who was a constituent of his (and apparently wanted to show his appreciation of Biden) and this is how Biden reached out to him. Ugh. And I don't need to mention the whole "clean, articulate, gaffe that he made about Obama do I?)



I've heard from people in the know that Biden is a good guy--a saavy politician and experienced. He lets his mouth get away from him, but he is smart.

I have to say that I'm at a point where I just want A WIN. I want the Democrats to win. I want Obama, in particular, to win--because I'm a true believer, because I want change. Because I CANNOT BEAR THE THOUGHT OF YET ANOTHER FOUR YEARS OF REPUBLICAN MIS-LEADERSHIP. And truly, what I can't bear the thought of, what sends me into cycles of despair, is believing that Barack Obama might lose, not because of his policy platform, not because he's a Democrat, not because he's chosen Joe Biden as his running mate, but because quite simply people will not vote for him because the color of his skin, prevents them from seeing him as presidential material.

Senator McCain, tell us what you REALLY think about race in America?

This Monday I wrote that there was more to say about John McCain and the topic of race in America. But the truth is, I have actually written about this topic before. In March, I called on journalists to start asking John McCain to talk about race ("Calling on McCain to talk about race")--because doesn't it strike anyone that as a white American man detained in an Asian country as a POW and one who regularly used a racial slur against Asians, "gook," until he disavowed its use in the 2000 campaign--doesn't anyone think that John McCain has opinions about race in America? Particularly since his family is mixed-race with the addition of the daughter that Cindy McCain brought back from Bangladesh unannounced.

[By the way, does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that Cindy McCain was able to just bring back a baby from Bangladesh into this country and she seemingly did it without first discussing the matter with her husband and the rest of her family? And then there's the whole background check, the paperwork, the months and sometimes years of waiting. She went to Bangladesh, toured an orphanage, and then brought back two little girls, one she kept and the other that got adopted by friends. And John McCain's reaction is "Whoa, honey! Didn't realize you were bringing back souvenirs!" but then he quickly says how delighted he is, but how much would you give to go back in time and be a fly on the wall at the McCain house?]

And besides one audience member at a town hall event in Ohio, doesn't anyone want to ask John McCain about women and gender issues, especially in light of the sexist slur he used against HIS OWN WIFE? ("Who is John McCain?").

Plenty of other bloggers I respect have also commented on John McCain and race and who this straight talker REALLY is:

Tenured Radical has an excellent post about the use of the phrase "the race card" and the McCain campaign's invocation of this specter.

What Tami Said has a post detailing the various racial slurs that McCain is overheard to have made at bar he liked to frequent in DC.

Angry Asian Man also has commented about John McCain's racism and his use of the slur "gook," plugging a book by Irwin Tang--and here's a video in which Tang talks about the importance of understanding John McCain's particular brand of Asian racism:



Finally, in case you haven't heard, there's been a scuffle between John McCain and...Paris Hilton! McCain used images of Hilton and Britney Spears in his latest negative campaign against Barack Obama, calling Obama a . . . CELEBRITY and likening him to Spears and Hilton. Paris Hilton then shot back with a video of her own with the help of the Internet sensation "Funny or Die":

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

President Hilton? I hope not. But this campaign season just got a bit wackier.

The politics of racial satire

I know I'm about two weeks behind on talking about the now infamous New Yorker cover of the Obamas--the one that was meant to be satirical.


[This is the cover in question]

There have been A LOT of talking heads, bloggers, and journalists who have weighed in on this issue already--The Huffington Post (this is actually a Q&A with New Yorker editor, David Remnick, but it contains a link to Rachel Sklar's own take (and several comments) about the cover, Racialicious (who talks about its link to hipster racism and the long comment threads are, as always, very interesting reading), and The New York Times, which gives an account of political satire in the general public sphere related to the upcoming presidential elections.

And really, after all these people have said so much, what exactly do I have to add to all this?

Simply this: racial satire is difficult and is best avoided by any but the most practiced and skilled of humorists.

According to the on-line Merriam-Webster dictionary, satire is defined as:

1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

One of the most famous satirists, Jonathan Swift, was reviled after he wrote "A Modest Proposal" in which many readers did not understand that he was not seriously proposing cannibalism as a remedy to poverty in Ireland. The essay is now a model for exactly what the definition of satire suggests--it uses irony and trenchant wit to expose the ridiculousness and vice of the impoverished situation of many in Ireland living under British colonial rule.

Now racial satire is a more distinct entity than satire--it's not simply political satire as The New York Times article wants to suggest; racial satire hinges on a distinct understanding on the parts of the person creating the satire and her/his audience. It requires, in other words, an understanding of racism and in the U.S. what those conditions have been like for various groups--what those stereotypes are--so that the send-up, the sarcasm, the satire will be successful.

And racial satire seems best practiced when the person who is doing the satire is sending up the racial group that s/he identifies with. Hence Margaret Cho's routine when she talks about being Korean and Asian American can be seen as satirical because she is mocking both mainstream culture (largely white) as well as her fellow Korean and Asian Americans. And it's easier for us to take her racial satire because she is speaking from an in-group position.

Similarly, in "The Racial Draft" skit, Dave Chappelle introduces his skit by talking about his Asian American wife and the difficulties of multiracial identification. His personal admission lets us know that he is speaking from a place of experience--and if he has children, they will be part of the "confusion" that he is trying to satirize.

Yet even with Cho and Chappelle, there can be moments of discomfort--times when I laugh and I wonder what, exactly, am I laughing at...and moments of discomfort wondering if the other people around me (I've been to several of Cho's live shows) really "get" the joke.

Racial satire, and really, racial humor in general, are so tricky that a comedian as skilled as Dave Chappelle has cancelled his show, in part, because he was disturbed by some white people not getting the satire--not understanding that what he was trying to do was to expose the absurdity of race and racism in a humorous vein and not simply to mock African Americans and others.

[BTW, this is what I've largely heard reported about Chappelle--but does anyone have a link to an interview he has done that specifically talks about the reasons he ended his show?]

The New Yorker cover failed, in my opinion, largely because a magazine like The New Yorker isn't skilled in handling racial satire and not only didn't show an appropriate sensitivity but also failed to make that satire clear--as one commenter noted in the Racialicious thread, if this image had appeared in the heads of an anxious, white conservative voter, or even an "average white American" and then another thought bubble appeared with an "average African American" or even the Obamas' themselves picturing the scene very differently, THEN, maybe, we could see the satire better.

But even had they done this, The New Yorker is indelibly marked as an elitist magazine, one associated with the New York upper-East side intelligensia, largely marked as white (albeit liberal). If this same image had appeared on the cover of Ebony or Jet or Hyphen or Colorlines, I think there would have been a different reaction--some people may have still talked about the inappropriateness of the cover, but the context would have changed a lot--the readership of these magazines would be assumed to have more access to the stereotypes and to understanding the racism inherent in what was trying to be satirized. And the staffs and editorial boards (and editors-in-chief) of these magazines would be assumed to be either people or color or white allies who understand the fraught dynamics of race and racism and the trickiness of racial satire.

Because at the end of the day, some things aren't funny. And while I know The New Yorker was trying to talk about the politics of fear and anxiety that lead some people to view the Obamas through the lens of the cover, the unfortunate reality is that like in Swift's 18th C. Ireland, many people didn't get the joke and just assumed that the cover was a reflection of reality rather than a mirror held up to the racist fantasies of some people.

Barack Obama is our first (fill-in-the-blank)

A few days ago there was an interesting discussion flying around on the comment section of one of Racialicious's posts titled "Is Barack Obama black or biracial?" If you click on the link above, you will see some CNN footage and then the comments section, which both does and doesn't address the CNN footage.

And really, the comment thread was fascinating in many ways. There are nearly 100 comments (mine is #97--I got in late to the discussion) but I thought given the fact that I work on issues of mixed-race, that I've been an ardent supporter of the Obama campaign, and that this is a blog called "Mixed Race America," it'd be a good time to throw out some thoughts and solicit some comments/observations from folks out there in the blogosphere.

"Some thoughts about the post & comment thread "Is Barack Obama black or bi-racial?"

*I don't think it's an either/or question. I think Obama can be black and bi-racial. And I think he has said as much by saying he is a black man raised by a white mother and white grandparents. And I think if we are going to think about environment, then it's CRUCIAL to consider the multiracial/multiethnic population of Hawaii and the particular politics of Hawaii (ie: indigenous Hawaiian population suffering under U.S. colonialism, current Asian settler community in the majority, racially speaking, who dominate positions of power within Hawaii, Islander status/mentality of not being part of continental U.S.)

*I think everyone is free to choose his/her own identity; however, I think some identities are going to be challenged more than others. If I started to tell people I identify as a black woman because I want to be in solidarity with African American people (a piece of advice bell hooks once gave to me) I think many if not all people would find this hard to accept and many people may also find it offensive/disrespectful towards African Americans.

*As much as I know racism is a pernicious and invidious force in the world, I hate feeling like it dominates or controls the way I think about myself--but I also recognize that as an Asian American woman who teaches at a university and lives in a college town, I have the privilege of not being faced with virulent forms of racism in my daily life and therefore I don't feel the effects of racism in the same way that someone else who doesn't have my profile may feel it in every way, everyday.

*We don't listen enough to one another. We are often defensive--trying to protect ourselves, our territories, our rights. I link this to an American cultural trait, but perhaps it's a human defense mechanism. When people say they suffer from racism; when African Americans of various hues talk about experiences of discrimination; when Obama himself claims a black identity but also clearly does not dismiss his mixed-race background and mixed-ethnic heritage (which includes family in Kenya, a sister, brother-in-law, and nieces and nephews who identify, in part, as Asian American, multiple family members married to various folks of different nationalities and ethnicities living around the globe, childhood experiences in Indonesia as well as Hawaii), we need to HEAR him and respect his identity.

*We have a hard time accepting what may seem (but is not) two contradictory points: that Obama is both black AND bi-racial AND mixed-heritage

[note: I'm big on the mixed-heritage thing--partly because I think there are many of us who may be "monoracial" but have experiences that are multicultural, even more than the usual push-pull of the U.S. color line. For example, at a recent academic conference workshop, I told the organizer that while I didn't identify as mixed-race, I also never felt comfortable as Chinese American because my mother's Jamaican cultural background and nationality made me *feel* like I had grown up Jamaican--at least as much Jamaican as Chinese in terms of food, cultural referents, and family members who identified as such. The organizer noted that many transnational adoptees also share similar sentiments, and that a former student of hers who grew up Japanese in Peru but was now living in the U.S. also felt distinctly dislocated and "mixed" although he appeared to be a monoracial individual. And Sang-shil at Land of the Not-So-Calm has a great post about the differences between Korean American identification and Korean adoptee identification.

*Ignoring race, not talking about race, not discussing issues of race will not make racism go away. A letter to the editor of Newsweek magazine recently suggested that people should stop focusing on Obama's race because more people were worried about the economy and war in Iraq and could care less about his racial identity--and that it's our inability to let go of race that is causing the problem.

And while I agree that there are issues that certainly seem like they should be front and center, like the economy, the war, and I'd add the environment, believing that if we stop focusing on an issue it will disappear is simply naive. Someone's "race" isn't the problem--racism is. But getting everyone to agree on what racism looks like and to understand that it will look and feel different for different people depending on life experience, what you look like, where you were raised, who your family is, what social group you hang out with, your gender, sexuality, income, level of education, height, weight, and host of other factors too long to get into...PEOPLE! HUMANS ARE COMPLEX! AND RACE IS COMPLICATED! AND RACISM HAS BEEN AROUND THE WORLD FOR A LONG, LONG, LONG TIME AND KNOWS HOW TO MUTATE. Trust me, if I thought that not talking about race would end racism, I'd have shut up a long time ago and started to blog about my dog and would have written my dissertation on Jane Austen (whom I love--don't bash Jane!).

OK, enough from me. I'd love to hear what YOU think. I'd love to hear from a variety of voices--from people around the U.S. but also around the world. From people who identify as bi- or multi-racial. Obama supporters or Clinton supporters or even McCain supporters (are there McCain supporters reading this blog? do you feel marginalized here? Really, this is a welcome space, although I could understand why you may not want to leave a comment on such a lefty-liberal blog).

What kind of first is Obama? Is it naive to think that people can choose to identify however they want? Are some identities harder than others for people to accept? And why do we keep wondering about Obama's identity and not McCains? Is it really that obvious what McCain's "race" is?

The Democratic Nominee--Barack Obama

It has been said before but I'll repeat it here: history has been made. Barack Hussein Obama (and yes, I'm invoking the middle-name deliberately to make a point) is the Democratic nominee for the 2008 Presidential election.


[pause for sustained applause and whooping and whistles]

I received a very enthusiastic email message from a friend who is out of the state right now who just can't believe that we are seeing this happen. And I've had similar conversations on the phone and in person with friends and family members who are over the moon about this state of affairs. And we are a mixed bunch, my friends and family. And I think that's important to note, because so much has been made of race by those outside of Obama's camp and supporters--about him being a "black" candidate who has a "Muslim" middle-name and family ties to Islam.

But imagine what this says, to the nation, to the world, but more importantly to the kids at your local elementary school: the Democratic nominee for the first time is not a white man. And in Obama's case his mixed-parentage, and very mixed-upbringing, is also something to take note--that he comes from a complex heritage and claims family across the globe of all different ethnicities.

There are a lot of pundits, talking heads, and reporters who are writing about what this means for the Democratic party, for the nation, for the world. One article I found interesting was in today's New York Times, "Many Blacks Find Joy in Unexpected Breakthrough." I think it's true that African Americans probably do feel a sense of pride and perhaps even surprise that a majority of white Americans (and Americans of color across the spectrum) are behind Barack Obama--that he garners so much cross-ethnic, cross-racial support. But the truth is, I think for any of us interested in anti-racist practices, Barack Obama's nomination is one that inspires a sense of hope--a renewed faith that WE can make a DIFFERENCE in the nation.

And I went back and looked through all of the posts I had written about Obama (there are several--you can type in his name in the search box and see), but I want to link to one I wrote nearly a year ago. It was written on June 12, "Walk for Barack", right after I had participated in the Saturday, June 9 "Walk for Change" that Obama's campaign orchestrated. This is when my support for Obama became concrete--because you don't knock on doors in 90 degree humid weather in the South if you don't feel a sense of passion and commitment.

Here is an excerpt from what I wrote then--the context is that I was relating a conversation that I had had with an older African American man who expressed skepticism that Obama was electable because he questioned whether this country was ready for a black president:

I don't know if the average American voter wants to elect a black president. But what I told this gentleman and what I believe, and what got me out on a 92 degree afternoon, knocking on people's doors, volunteering for the first time in my life to canvass for a cause or a person--what I believe in my heart of hearts is that I want to and need to believe that we, as a nation, are ready to move ahead in terms of racial politics. That we want to learn from the past and we want to learn from each other. And while I know that racism will not be erased so easily by a few ethnic studies classes or multicultural fairs, I also know that I am supporting Obama because I have to have faith. I have to believe and to envision the country I want rather than the country I suspect I have. I have to actually practice what I preach rather than bemoaning the state of race and politics that we currently live in.

All I have to say now, a year later, is YES WE CAN!

Putting race and gender front and center

I'm a little bit of a political junkie, which I'm sure you have gleaned if you have been following this blog over the last year. And I mean political junkie not just Obama fan (although I'm sure that the two are often confused nowadays). But in the last primary I voted in, I also paid attention to who was running in local elections, and even attended a few precinct meetings, because I figured that I shouldn't just say I want change, I should try to make change (although I recognize that volunteering a few hours to canvass for Obama and going to a few meetings isn't really revolutionary).

At any rate, I've been hearing and reading a lot of politicos and talking heads go on about whether the extended primaries for the Democratic nominee is a good or a bad thing for the party and for the chances of a Democratic contender taking back the White House in November. Some say it's good because this gives a chance to educate people on the electoral process and more first time voters have gotten involved in the political process (for both Obama and Clinton) than ever before. Some say it's bad because it's dividing the party and draining resources and letting Obama and Clinton attack one another in the primaries only helps McCain's machine gear up for the real race post-Denver.

But I think one great thing to emerge from the extended Democratic primaries are the conversations in the public sphere over race and gender. Because lets face it, no matter who gets the nod it's going to be historic: the country's first female presidential candidate or first African American/mixed-race candidate*.

[aside: I put a little asterisk (*) when alluding to Obama because race being what it is, that slippery, flexible category, there very well may have been a President or Presidential candidate with African American heritage and certainly with a mixed-race background--but Obama is the first openly mixed-race and African American candidate, so I still think it's appropriate to think about him under these parameters.]

And because of the historical precedent and because race and gender are issues that Americans are fascinated by, there have been many conversations about race and gender, about racism and sexism, about white Americans and African Americans and all other racial categories, about mixed-race Americans, about a history of sexism and gender discrimination against women in public life, about a history of racism and race discrimination. And by and large, I think this has all been to the good.

I don't mean that all of the discussions have been good. I think that there have been very heated exchanges, editorials that have been anger producing, and comments from various bloggers, talking heads, media figures, newscasters, journalists, academics, politicians, public figures, celebrities, and average Americans that suggests that we are not getting along when it comes to gender and racial issues.

And that's what I think has been good. Because when's the last time you had SO MUCH ATTENTION focused on issues of gender and race and SO MUCH DEBATE, DISCUSSION, DISSENT, DISAGREEMENT, DISATISFACTION openly expressed in newspaper editorials, magazine articles, blog posts, television talk shows, radio call-in shows, and just general water cooler conversation about race and gender?

I had been thinking about writing a post about the various conversations I've seen going on in the blogosphere alone that have been inspired by Obama and Clinton. There are too many to mention, but I have to acknowledge first and foremost Lesboprof's excellent post that spurred me to finally write the one you're reading. Her post, "Good Racial Conversations" also has a link to the Atlanta Journal Constitution's article about a former white Southern roommate of Michelle Obama and the woman's revelation of her own racism (you can go to Lesboprof's post linked above or to the link here). The Wall Street Journal recently did an article about race and politics and college campuses, noting the disconnect between white students who support Obama but who don't have any black friends and who remain largely ignorant of African American culture and history (click here). And as other bloggers such as What Tami Said and Racialicious have already chimed in about, there was an article in The Nation, "Race to the Bottom," by Besty Reed that very eloquently and forcefully talks about entwined and twinned issues of race and gender, of racism and sexism, and of how we have seen these issues play out in the Democratic primaries and the campaigns and the spin camps of both Clinton and Obama, as well as the mainstream media outlets and the blogosphere.

There's so much else I could write about--there has certainly been a fair amount of discouraging things to comment on, regarding the divide I've been seeing in the blogosphere among women of color and white feminists. And I continue to be amazed by the ignorant things that come out of people's mouths, in terms of race and gender, but also class and sexuality and region. And I continue to amaze myself with my own naivete over others' ignorance and anger and my own biases and prejudices, which I struggle with (I was recently called out by some folks over anti-Southern things I had said or stereotypes I had made that I didn't think were stereotypes or anti-Southern--but in hindsight I can see why a Southerner would have taken my remarks in an anti-Southern way and seen me as a "Yankee elitist"--because my own prejudices against "The South" are ones I'm still blind to and working out).

But like Obama, let me end on a message of hope--that I think it IS possible for us to try to come together. That dissent and disagreement do not have to be bad things--in fact, we need to have a certain amount of tension around issues of race and gender to have things move forward. We have to be ready to live with a certain amount of discomfort and to work through our defense mechanisms and pride in order to try to hear one another and to be allies for each other.

So with that note, I'm leaving you with one final link to Latoya Peterson's series in Racialicious "On facing your bias, owning your prejudice, and allies" -- this is the link to Part II, and the post includes the link to Part I (and Peterson alludes to a Part III, which I'm looking forward to). I find her series to be thoughtful and thought provoking--I hope you do too. And I am glad that America is finally talking about race and gender in the public sphere. While some of the discussions are discouraging and draining and makes you want to hit your head against a brick wall, there are also moments when I've been astounded at the level of discourse--the high level of discourse and self-reflection and candor that people are engaging in over these very tough and complex subjects.

Lets keep the conversation flowing.

Yes We Can!

The voters of North Carolina and Indiana have spoken (because a 2% margin of victory for Clinton in Indiana is not much of a victory and a 14% margin in North Carolina is definitely decisive). Barack Obama is on the way to Denver, and short of a debacle happening (which could still happen--this is the Democratic party and this is the U.S., where we've allowed atrocities to happen in our electoral process before) we will see Senator Obama as the Democratic nominee for the Presidential race of 2008.

I am a HUGE Obama supporter--so for readers who are not, please bear with me. What follows is adulation on my part and also a clarification for why I decided, very early, to support Barack Obama in his march towards the White House.

I am supporting Barack Obama because:

*Like most of the nation who saw him deliver his very famous speech at the 2004 Democratic National convention, I was HUGELY impressed with his oratorical skills and the level of passion with which he conveyed his beliefs of America.

*I read Dreams from My Father and was impressed with the story of his life--with the dedication that he has to public service and the honest reflections he has about himself, his family, and his place in the world. I was particularly impressed with the candor of some of his observations--revealing things about himself that clearly weren't designed to "get voters" and certainly did not have a national presidential campaign in mind.

*In reading through his policy statements, I believe that of the democratic candidates who were (and I guess still are) in contention, his were the policies that I believed were most thoughtful and forward thinking in trying to make real change happen in America.

*I like his positive message--I like the optimism of his campaign--I like the message of hope and change--I believe they aren't just buzzwords but words for us to believe in because we want to HOPE that we can CHANGE the direction the nation is headed.

*After his speech on race in Philadelphia I believed, even more strongly, that Obama is the most intelligent and thoughtful and insightful politician to talk about issues of race in our nation--and we NEED intelligent, thoughtful, insightful, and candid conversations about race in this country--and Obama's own background as "mixed-race"--and where he grew up and where he has lived--all contribute to his being able to articulate a message about race in America--about a mixed-race America that I truly believe in.

*Younger voters, people who have never volunteered for a campaign before, who have never donated money to a campaign before, people who have never bothered to register to vote before, are getting behind Obama, behind this campaign. People feel a sense of optimism and activism from him--they want to make a difference in the world, and I know I want to make a difference in the world too.

*This speech (YouTube clip below) in North Carolina is inspiring--because Barack Obama reminds us that WE have a choice, that this campaign isn't about the candidates, it's about US and what WE can do to create a groundswell from the bottom up.



YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

Denver, here we come!

May the force be with Obama

I don't think I need to say anything about this clip--it speaks for itself.

[tip of the hat to Poplicks--if for some reason you can't see the clip here, click on this link, which will take you to the Poplicks site]

An open letter to Senator Hillary Clinton

Dear Senator Clinton,

First of all, thank you for your years of public service. I mean, I know people have squabbled about whether or not the years you spent as First Lady *count* as public service, but being in the limelight in the way that you were during those eight years, not to mention the fishbowl of the Arkansas governor's mansion, and the way I'm sure you aided your husband's political career and public (and international) policy decisions, well, I believe that does count for something.

And certainly your years in the Senate have distinguished you in your unwavering service to the state of New York, your *adopted* state if you will.

But Senator Clinton, aren't you tired? You are heading into the weekend before the Tuesday, May 6 Indiana and North Carolina state primaries. You have been jetting back and forth between these two states and two time zones. You have been shaking hands, meeting the masses, and talking to the press. You must be exhausted...you must really need a vacation.

So may I kindly suggest that you step down? Please? Pretty please with sugar on top? I've heard the talking heads. I know they say that you are trying to prove that you are a fighter--that you are tenacious--that you can hang on despite numbers, despite pundits, despite all odds...and you HAVE hung on--I'm sure you are planning to go all the way to the Denver Democratic convention.

Don't. Please. Don't

I know people say it's bad for the party and others say it's galvanized the party. But you know what? It's bad for YOU. It's bad for you and your husband's legacy. Look at what happened to President Clinton after South Carolina? It was EMBARRASSING. It was CRINGE WORTHY and ANGER PRODUCING. And you, what are you doing? That 3am ad...really?! It was so blatant. And your surrogates...don't get me started on Gloria Steinem and Geraldine Ferraro. Do you know one of the things that has happened since this all began is a serious conversation among women and a divide that I've been seeing between white women feminists and women of color, particularly African American women, who no longer claim "feminist" as a descriptor because they are so disillusioned with the subtle (and not so subtle) racism coming out of the mouths of some white feminist women (please see this post by a friend and fellow blogger Tami--she is quite eloquent on this subject).

Look, I know you feel like this was your time and along comes this younger upstart, this charismatic guy who has the gall to be the Illinois senator of all places (your childhood home state!). But have you read his biography? I mean, like you, he's *adopted* Illinois as his home state--and he did so at an early age, right out of college. He is a good man. You have MUCH in common in the way of policy issues and philosophical values. Do you see the way he's galvanized people? I know words like "change" and "hope" sound like buzzwords, but people really are fired up--they really are turning out in record numbers, to vote, to support him, to try to make a difference because we ALL want to make a difference this election (I guess by all I should say that I'm mainly talking to fellow travelers-Democrats, although I think there are plenty of Independents and Republicans who also don't want to see business as usual).

Barack Obama is smart, caring, compassionate, and dare I say articulate (I'll leave the clean part for Senator Biden). He is NOT crazy--and there are a lot of crazy folks out there, ones in the Republican party who want to actually run for higher office like this guy, Tony Zirkle--the guy actually BELIEVES that if only Europe had stricter anti-pornography/prostitution laws then WWII would have been averted because Hitler used anti-pornography/prostitution as a platform for the Final Solution against Jewish people since 97% of international pornography/prostitution came from Jewish cartels (yes, the man HAS THIS ON HIS CAMPAIGN WEBSITE -- you can find a link in the Poplicks comment section--click here).

You have run long and hard Senator Clinton. You owe it to yourself, to your family, and dare I say to the rest of us, to exit now, to say good-bye gracefully. You can still make an impact on the world. Look at Al Gore. Who would have thought he'd bounce back and win an Oscar and a Nobel Prize?!! And President Jimmy Carter--a man vilified in his time is now the senior voice of reason and wisdom in the Democratic party and has done so much good in this world. Your public service isn't over Senator Clinton...please, Please, PLEASE, leave the race and help campaign for Senator Obama. Just say it...you know secretly you've wanted to.... Yes WE can!

Sincerely,
The Blogger of Mixed Race America

I approve this post

This was the infamous 3am ad that Hillary Clinton ran a few weeks ago:



[If a phone is ringing at 3am in the White House, there is NO WAY it'd continue ringing--and Obama is NOT going to be answering the phone--the White House Switchboard will--I mean, hasn't everyone SEEN The West Wing???]

This is the ad that Casey Knowles, the girl in the stock footage of the original ad (who is now 17) recently made: