Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Hillary Clinton: party unifier

I was nervous. I didn't know what to expect last night. I wanted to believe that she could pull it off, rally the troops, inspire her party, speak to the nation.


And she did! Last night's Hillary Clinton was the one I remembered from the time she came to UCSB to campaign for Bill Clinton in Spring 1992.

If you missed it, here it is on YouTube--it's worth taking 25 minutes to hear her unite the party and unequivocally endorse Barack Obama. And if you look at the crowd at the DNC, you can't help but feel that this is what America actually should look like--a real mixed race America.



Ps. I've always been a Chelsea Clinton fan, and she seems to have grown into a really lovely young woman.

Pps. If you haven't already guessed, I'm devoting this week to posts about the DNC--I am a political junkie at heart, but lets face it--this is HISTORIC, and it's important--for every single person on the planet because like it or hate it, the person in the White House in the next four years will have a global impact that only the leader of a world superpower can have.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

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.

Friday, May 2, 2008

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

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

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:

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

I appreciate political change

Today is Super Tuesday, a major date for voters to winnow out the field of 2008 Presidential contenders in both parties. (today is also Mardi Gras and International Pancake Day).

And my appreciation of the day leading up to Chinese New Year is that I appreciate that this election season, among the Democratic contenders, we have the choice between electing a white woman and an African American man.



I appreciate the political change that this signals. It is easy to get swept away by rhetoric and easier to feel cynical about U.S. politics. But no matter what party you are voting for or which Democratic candidate you are supporting in today's primary (if you live in a Super Tuesday state) the fact that there is a choice beyond selecting a white man to be our nation's leader is historic, momentous, and quite frankly long overdue.

I support Barack Obama--so much so, and from such an early date, that I actually went door to door in 90 degree weather (with a heat index of about 100 because this is the South) in June to hand out leaflets and talk about why I believed in his candidacy. It seemed, at the time, a bit premature, a bit naive, and a bit silly. I wondered why I was doing this--handing out literature to people who clearly thought I was crazy (although they were all polite and some even offered cold glasses of water, which I really appreciated). I mention this story because for the first time I felt excited about a candidate and wanted to DO something.

And after Super Tuesday is over and after the Democratic National Convention this summer, I will again go door to door and make phone calls and do whatever I can to support whoever the Democratic candidate is. Because even if it's not Obama, it will be Clinton--and while she may not be my first choice, I also think she will make an outstanding commander in chief, and she's also part of this historic moment.

We need political change right now. And we need to believe that we can DO SOMETHING to bring about that change. I have to believe that I can work for the country I want rather than sit back and bemoan the nation I am left with. It does take work--it's not going to happen with empty rhetoric. But it can happen. After all, just look at the photo on this post--did anyone ever imagine the day when we'd have this choice?

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Do we have to choose between racism and sexism?

The spin post-New Hampshire primaries has been interesting, to say the least, as well as the hype leading up to them. Of particular note is Gloria Steinem's editorial in The New York Times, "Women Are Never Frontrunners" (January 8, 2008) where she actually makes a claim for sexism being more oppressive than racism (or perhaps to put it in a different way, where she seems to be arguing for gender being the greater liability than race in achieving equity in the U.S.).

I was thinking of either writing to The New York Times or writing a blog post in response to Steinam's op-ed, but then I saw that Tami at "What Tami Said" has already said everything I would have said (and said it better). In her post, "Dear Steinem: Ain't I a Woman too?" (January 9, 2008) Tami lays out all the problems with Steinem's (il)logic in continuing to rank oppression, most especially, the notion that African American men became eligible to vote 50 years ahead of women. Here's Tami:

"Steinem separates the race issue from the gender issue as if there are not some of us affected by society's views of both. Ain't I a woman, too?

[Steinem]:'That's why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).'

I assume that at 18, Gloria Steinem cast her first presidential vote in the 1952 election. Certainly society did not prevent her from doing so. My paternal grandfather was a 53-year-old black man living in Mississippi that year. He was not afforded that freedom. Do we really want to go here? Apparently not."

Read the entire post--it's smart and totally on point. And it reminds us all that ranking oppression or separating sexism from racism is truly a losing proposition for us all. Choosing between Obama and Clinton is not choosing to support sexism over racism. Both are historic candidates. But they are also, fundamentally, politicians and presidential candidates who have platforms and who want to serve in public office and have a sense of civic responsibility. I know the inner-cynic in me reads all of this very differently, but as an Obama supporter and a die-hard Democrat, let me take the higher road and say that all of these candidates, and I'm going to be extra magnanimus and include the Republicans (*take deep inner breath*), want to be President of the United States because they feel they want to make the United States a better place. We may feel like one candidate has a better plan and better vision than the other, but (and now I'm going to focus on the 3 Democratic front-runners) at the end of the day, what we want (as Democrats--so I'm speaking to my fellow-travelers now) is to have a viable Democratic candidate we can support. We don't want to start telling people that if they vote for Edwards they hate black people and women. Or that supporting Obama is against our best interests as women or to be a Clinton champion means supporting racism.

What we want is a win in November 2008 and an end to racism & sexism because they are oppressive systems that actually work well together and you really can't end one without the other.

But listen, don't take my word for it. Read Tami's post--because she really says it best.