Hillary Flogged Again … The Nonsense Continues

For reasons that I just cannot understand, the Obama campaign has chosen to make a big deal of Sen. Clinton’s comments regarding her bewilderment as to why people are so hot to force her out of the Primary.  In contemplating this, she mentions that Robert Kennedy was still in the race into June and we remember that because he was assassinated in June.  She points to this because it’s likely something that many people can remember.  I certainly remember that and have been thinking about it all year.  It’s been forty years, putting it squarely on my mind.  Ted Kennedy’s illness brings it to the forefront as well.  What, she’s not allowed to mention an historical fact?  Why not?  Exactly what is it that they think she’s saying?  Listen for yourself.

There have been many campaigns that have gone into June and Clinton’s bewilderment is more than justified.  The fact that David Axelrod, and not Clinton, has chosen to go nuts over these innocent comments says something about the Obama campaign but I’m not sure what that is.  They sound desperate but why? 

Gender & Race, Obama & Clinton

Andrew Stephen at The New Statesman on Hillary-hating and Obama’s role:

“Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social science test,” says Alice Eagley, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. A distinguished academic undertaking a major study of coverage of the 2008 election, Professor Marion Just of Wellesley College – one of the “seven sisters” colleges founded because women were barred from the Ivy Leagues and which, coincidentally, Hillary Clinton herself attended – tells me that what is most striking to her is that the most repeated description of Senator Clinton is “cool and calculating”.

This, she says, would never be said of a male candidate – because any politician making a serious bid for the White House has, by definition, to be cool and calculating. Hillary Clinton, a successful senator for New York who was re-elected for a second term by a wide margin in 2006 – and who has been a political activist since she campaigned against the Vietnam War and served as a lawyer on the congressional staff seeking to impeach President Nixon – has been treated throughout the 2008 campaign as a mere appendage of her husband, never as a heavyweight politician whose career trajectory (as an accomplished lawyer and professional advocate for equality among children, for example) is markedly more impressive than those of the typical middle-aged male senator.

Rarely is she depicted as an intellectually formidable politician in her own right (is that what terrifies oafs like Matthews and Carlson?). Rather, she is the junior member of “Billary”, the derisive nickname coined by the media for herself and her husband. Obama’s opponent is thus not one of the two US senators for New York, but some amorphous creature called “the Clintons”, an aphorism that stands for amorality and sleaze. Open season has been declared on Bill Clinton, who is now reviled by the media every bit as much as Nixon ever was.

Here we come to the crunch. Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media – consciously or unconsciously – are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.

“What’s particularly saddening,” says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, “is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.” Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, Krugman believes that most of the “venom” in the campaign “is coming from supporters of Obama”.

But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. “While I was working in the streets,” he scolded her, “. . . you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart.” Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: “I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.”

One of his female staff then distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King (“Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964”) and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela (“I’ve been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary”) were deliberate racial taunts.

Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver – whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans – then weighed in publicly, claiming that “a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements” and saying: “Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?” That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists, an impression sealed when Bill Clinton later compared Obama’s victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 (even though Jackson himself, an Obama supporter, subsequently declared Clinton’s remarks to be entirely inoffensive).

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman’s presidential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself “unhappy” with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton’s approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

American Empire

James Laxer on the future of the American Empire and the US election campaigns:

Without acknowledging it, the three remaining major party candidates for the presidency are debating that oldest of imperial questions – how to keep the American Empire within manageable limits.

The empire is severely overstretched, as a consequence of the massive incompetence of the Bush administration. Militarily, the empire is embroiled in two wars with no end in sight, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Young men from poor families, the lifeblood of the US Army, are enlisting in reduced numbers, and that poses serious problems for the future.

at straight goods

Will the “Real” Jeremiah Wright … Do We Know Him?

What is the meaning/what are the meanings of the words that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has spoken in the last few days, in an interview with Bill Moyers on PBS (watch the whole interview  here  ) and during several press conferences today?  I suppose that many of us, no doubt viewing ourselves as intelligent people, think that we are in a position to decide (I’m talking about white folk in particular).  I don’t think so.  At least, we are not in that position immediately.  We have a lot of work to do first.

I’m not a racialized person living in America.  I assume that racialized people living in America have a lot to tell me before I might begin to understand their experience and their relationship to power, politics, the media etc.  I like the Reverend and I can relate to much of what he says, even his speech after 9/11.  But many people don’t like what he’s said, including Barack Obama apparently.  I’ve read some of the Reverend’s sermons, listened to videos of ENTIRE sermons and done some reading, as well as listening to African Americans and their responses on tv news shows.  I might be starting to APPROACH an understanding of what Wright’s sermons mean to his parishioners.  Yet others feel free to speak conclusively about what he means, immediately, without looking deeper, without speaking to people whose interpretations may be more accurate.  That’s dumb but more importantly, it’s racist.  It’s not a discussion or a conversation.  It’s privilege utilizing privilege and dominance to determine meaning.

Moreoever, I don’t describe myself as a Christian, though that is in my history.  I know nothing at all of the “prophetic tradition” in African American churches.  I have a good background for coming to an understanding and I’ve taken steps in that direction.  But I don’t pretend to understand as yet.  Until I do, beyond saying that I can relate to the Reverend and his people, I cannot judge.

With respect to Barack Obama, if anything, I’m disappointed that he has “renounced” these sermons of Rev. Wright.  I’d have thought a lot more of him if, as part of the discussion he urges upon his fellow Americans, he helped them towards an understanding of his long-time pastor, a man he clearly admires and only looks hypocritical distancing himself from.

Until I learn more, this will have to do:

First, a reminder of the incendiary, flame-hot words of one of America’s righteous heroes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. –

“God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place…[God will say:] And if you don’t stop your reckless course, I’ll rise up and break the backbone of your power.” 

MLK has God telling his people, “his” America, that he will rise up and break its backbone?  Not gentle words.  And more than gentle words were needed.  Tell me, if anyone had listened to words such as those spoken by Rev. Wright in 2001, where might America be just now? where might the world be?

If you want to read another opinion about Rev. Wright, check E.J. Dionne Jr.,    here

And this:

How dare Reverend Wright and King violate their assigned space! Next thing you know, they’ll be sitting in the front row of the bus, scaring the bejesus out of the bus driver and the proper people. All of whom can respond with anger. It’s right there, in the rulebook.   here

And, on March 29th when the first “Wright wars” raged, here’s David Newiert’s take on the brouhaha:

The Washington Post’s report on Obama’s speech observed that this was a controversy that “threatens to engulf his presidential candidacy.” Yet as far as anyone can tell, it was having only a marginal effect on the polls in the race before it blew up on the networks, and it was not generated by either of Obama’s political opponents, or by any particular interest groups.

No, this is a controversy cooked up almost entirely within the media realm. Once they sank their fangs into it, the whole zombielike corps of pundits, cable talking heads, and radio talk-show hosts couldn’t let go of it. And equally remarkable was the bias that was on display in discussing it: News anchors and talking heads flatly referred to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s videotaped remarks as “anti-American,” “hate-filled,” “vicious,” “offensive,” and so on and on.

It’s telling that none of them also observed that, for the most part, Wright’s remarks (aside from his conspiracist comments about AIDS, which were indeed inexcusable, but which received little or no play before Obama’s speech) were factually accurate, and deeply reflective of a reality that most African Americans live with — and which most white Americans do their best to ignore, deny, and forget. The remarks that were broadcast all over YouTube and replayed endlessly on the cable talk shows were, no doubt, were impolitic, but they were also largely true.

 more at firedoglake

And more today from peterr at firedoglake:

Let me start with some disclosure: I know Jeremiah Wright. I’ve worshiped at Trinity United Church of Christ a time or two. I’ve heard Wright speak at clergy conferences. I’ve had a couple of one-on-one conversations with him.

With that said . . . Oh, that man can preach. But as any preacher will tell you, it helps if people would listen. As a preacher with some 20+ years of my own experience in the pulpit, I shudder to think what would happen if some of my sermons were snipped and sliced and diced in the same manner as those of Jeremiah Wright.

The most lamentable aspect of the way Wright has been swift-boated is the manner in which his critics snipped his quotes out of context. CNN’s Roland Martin, underneath the broader radar of the media, noted that Jeremiah Wright’s now-infamous sermon addressing 9/11 was completely misrepresented:

One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.

To hear the media speak about it, though, this was Wright trying to burn down the White House. I’m not surprised that you didn’t hear this on Fox — though the initial interview with Peck took place on Fox! — but the fact that the media missed this is stunning. Even on CNN, apart from the blog post, you’d never get the idea that their reporters ever listened to the whole sermon. and judging from this morning’s performance by reporters at Wright’s appearance at the National Press Club, they’re still not listening.   more here

And while we’re reading and learning and trying to catch up, those of us who are NOT African Americans, let’s remember that African America is made up of multiple communities and many, many people with a wide variety of experience and interpretations of their own.  I know this is a bit of a rant and I do try to avoid that.  Can’t help it on this one.

 

Wish I’d Said This

From an expanded version of a talk given to University Democrats at the University of Texas at Austin on April 16, 2008:

It may seem odd to talk of sorrows around race and gender in politics when we are a few months away from being able to vote for a white woman or a black man for president of the United States. When I was born in 1958, any suggestion that such an election was on the horizon would have been laughed off as crazy. In the first presidential campaign I paid attention to as an eighth-grader in 1972, Shirley Chisholm – who four years earlier had become the first black woman to win a seat in Congress – was to most Americans a curiosity not a serious contender. Today, things are different.

Today Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s battle for the Democratic Party nomination suggests progress. Though the pace of progress toward gender and racial justice may seem slow, we should take a moment to honor the people whose struggles for the liberation of women and non-white people have brought us to this historic moment. If not for the vision and courage of those in the feminist and civil-rights movements there would be no possibility of a contest between Clinton and Obama, and the debt we owe those activists is enormous.

 […]

What are the sorrows to which I’m referring? I don’t mean the disgust and distress that many of us feel when we read the blogs, listen to talk radio, or watch cable TV news – places where some of our fellow citizens and journalists wallow in the sexism and racism that still infects so much of this society. I don’t mean the ways in which, even in polite liberal circles, Hillary Clinton is scrutinized in ways no man would ever be. I don’t mean the ways in which, even in polite liberal circles, Barack Obama’s blackness is examined for either its inadequacies or excesses.The attacks on Clinton because she is a woman and Obama because he is black should make us angry and may leave us feeling dejected, but for me they are not the stuff of sorrow. We can organize against those expressions of sexism and racism; we can mobilize to counter those forces; we can respond to those people.

Remembering the radicals

My sorrow comes from the recognition that the radical analyses of the feminist and civil-rights movements – the core insights of those movements that made it possible when I was young to imagine real liberation – are no longer recognized as a part of the conversation in the dominant political culture of the United States. It’s not just that such analyses have not been universally adopted – it would be naïve to think that in a few decades too many dramatic changes could be put into place, after all – but that they have been pushed even further to the margins, almost completely out of public view.

For example, when I talk about these ideas with students at the University of Texas it is for some the first time they have heard such things. It’s not that they have rejected the analyses or condemned the movements, but they did not know such radical ideas exist or had ever existed. These students often do not know that these movements did not simply condemn the worst overt manifestations of sexism and racism, but went to the heart of the patriarchal and white-supremacist nature of U.S. society while at the same time focusing attention on the imperialist nature of our foreign policy and predatory nature of corporate capitalism. The most compelling arguments emerging from those movements didn’t suggest a kindler-and-gentler imperialist capitalist state, but an end to those unjust and unsustainable systems.

The irony is that Clinton and Obama, who today are viable candidates because of those movements, provide such clear evidence of the death of the best hopes of those movements. Those two candidates have turned away from these compelling ideas so completely that neither speaks of patriarchy and white supremacy. These are not candidates opposing imperialism and capitalism but candidates telling us why we should believe they can manage the system better.

Atlantic Free Press

 Robert Jensen  here