Ranking Race Against Gender Is the First Step Towards Fundamentalism
Pitting identities against each other undermines the potential for building the progressive coalitions that the Democrats need
During his 1984 presidential bid Jesse Jackson vowed to choose a woman as his running mate - the only candidate to do so during the primaries. Having drawn in a new cohort of voters, he mobilised the “rainbow coalition” of blacks, Latinos, trade unionists, feminists, peace activists and gays to mount a credible challenge to the Democratic party establishment. Originally treated as a fringe candidate, he came in third with 20% of the vote. So even as the party sought to sideline him as an individual, they knew that he had awakened a constituency whose demands they would have to engage with.
Walter Mondale, the eventual nominee, chose Geraldine Ferraro as his vice-presidential partner - an important first for a major party and a big victory for the advancement of women in American politics. In the wake of her selection, recalls professor and activist Angela Davis, Jackson supporters wore buttons announcing: “Jesse opened the door, Ferraro walked through!”
Whether the relationship was quite so causal is debatable. But what is clear is that the nature of Jackson’s candidacy was instrumental in creating the context in which choosing Ferraro was possible.
The notion that struggles for equality are interconnected and that we all rise together or can all fall separately is evidently one that was lost on Ferraro. Last week Ferraro, who is supporting Hillary Clinton, claimed that presidential hopeful Barack Obama is only leading in the Democratic primaries because he is black. “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she said. “And if he was a woman of any colour, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
This is clearly ludicrous. True, like every other candidate, Obama has to run on his story, and race is an important part of that story. But if being a black man is such an electoral advantage, then how is it that they make up 6% of the population and only 1% of the senate (Obama)? As the recent controversy over his former pastor shows, for all the votes that Obama gets because he is black there are at least as many that he loses for the same reason.
But when it comes to the absurd notion that Obama is the candidate of privilege, Ferraro is sadly not alone. The last few months have seen a procession of older, white feminists claim that Obama’s presidential ambitions represent both a setback for women and a victory for race over gender.
Most shocking, given her lifetime of thoughtful and impassioned activism, was Gloria Steinem, who argued in an article in the New York Times: “Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House … 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.”
Without acknowledging that black men in America were lynched for attempting to exercise their vote for almost 50 years after white women went freely to the polls, her argument was as selective in its accuracy as it was divisive in its effect. Steinem would later claim she was misunderstood. Given the clarity of expression for which she is renowned and that this was the central thrust of her piece, it is difficult to see how this can have happened.
Then came Robin Morgan, author of a famous feminist essay, Goodbye to All That, who revived her 30-year-old refrain for modern times. “A few non-racist countries may exist - but sexism is everywhere,” she wrote. “So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?”
Recently a regional director for the National Organization for Women (Now) told the Washington Post: “There are some people who promote Barack Obama because they want anybody but a woman. Would they like a white man instead of a black man? Of course. But they’ll take a black man over a woman.”
This attempt to play race off against gender as though they were bargaining chips is not new. In the wake of the American civil war a fierce debate raged over the 15th amendment to the US constitution, which planned to give the vote to black men but not any women. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the nation’s leading suffragettes, believed that to enfranchise black men was a licence for an explosion of sexual violence. In the feminist paper the Revolution, she wrote that, forced to chose: “We prefer Bridget and Dinah at the ballot box to Patrick and Sambo.” Black men have, at times, been similarly exclusionary. “The only position for women in SNCC [the student wing of the civil rights movement] is prone,” Stokely Carmichael once said.
Indeed, counterposing race and gender in this way is about as reductive and reactionary as identity politics can be. For a start, it relegates black women to a subsidiary role, treating them not as whole human beings but divided selves embodying binary identities that are in conflict and contradiction. Sometimes they’re black. Sometimes they’re women. Somehow they never seem to get to be both at the same time.
“I really believe the biggest divide in the world is men versus women, but most people don’t seem to feel that way,” says Marj Signer, president of Now’s Virginia chapter. “A lot of people identify with race first, and so that can mean Obama. They forget about sexism.” Or maybe black women just saw where Signer was coming from and decided to head in another direction.
To treat identities as monolithic and interchangeable in this way is deeply flawed. Class, gender, race, sexual orientation - you name the identity and it will have its own roots, dynamics and dimensions. Sexism and racism have different histories and operate in different ways. To try to simply exchange one for the other - even for rhetorical purposes - won’t teach you much about either.
Ranking identities as though they belong in definitive league tables is an insidious process that seeks to privilege one person’s experience and pain over another’s. In these discussions context is everything. To compare and contrast the qualitative differences between how certain identities function can be instructive. But to rank them quantitatively as though one inherently takes precedence over the other - always and in all ways - is the first step towards fundamentalism.
This is the kind of competition for which there are not only no winners but, in this particular case, for which there is no need. Both Obama and Clinton are unworthy vessels for this kind of antagonism. Neither is standing on an anti-racist or feminist agenda. There is no suggestion that she would be any worse on race than he is or that he would be any worse on gender than she is.
Pitting underrepresented groups against each other in this way simply undermines any potential for building the kind of progressive coalitions necessary to eradicate the very obstacles to the emergence of more black and female candidates. If this is what the Democrats do to each other, just imagine what fun the Republicans will have.
Gary Younge’s most recent book is Stranger in a Strange Land: Encounters in the Disunited States; he is also the author of No Place Like Home, published in 1999g.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
We Yankees always think in zero-sum terms.
Hillary seems to defile everything she touches; in this case she has brought out the ugliest side of the mainstream feminist movement. So Ferraro can decry black “privilege” and Steinhem can blithely forget about lynching? These highly privileged white women whining gives new meaning to the term “rich bitch”. (I am a 55 year old white female, but not rich).
What a tiring mess this is becoming.
Gary Younge___ You say, just imagine what fun the Repubs will have. They are already having their fun, ever since they managed to get a woman and a black running against each other as the “front runners”, and never let up on it. The Repubs have good comtrol over the media and that works about as well as controlling the voting machines.
Of course they are laughing and think they have swung another election so the ruination can continue. However, if the Dems can muster up a few brains and stop running down their own candidates, this election could still go their way and the Repubs could start weeping for a change.
In case no one has noticed, the Repubs always close ranks and get on the bandwagon, which has worked well for their party, not so well for their country. The Dems have their opportunity, and would do well to watch how the other party has operated in elections. Instead of trashing their own people, Dems need to ask themselves if they want to have any more of the present disaster.
The GOP is voting for Hillary…what else do we need to know?
Race vs Gender is a false opposition, presented with evil machinations. Even WE cynics have been fooled and distracted.
This is the DLC, Corporate pseudo-cenrists, up to their eyeballs in War Profiteer Booty… versus… A MILDLY progressive newcomer that threatens to broaden the Tent of the DNC and MILDLY threaten entrenched powers. He’s perceived as a loose cannon. They prefer losing the White House to loosening their iron grip on our throats.
They always deanscream and moonbeam anyone that doesn’t take ALL THE MONEY.
It’s actually been this way since 1967.
If he was a woman they’d be bashing him that way. He happens to be Black with one of “them thar Nation ‘o’ Islam” sounding names.
Lucky Barack, the Affirmative Action Candidate with Radical Ties to Islamic sympathizers. Wait till Rove gets a focus on his happy ass. Won’t that be fun?
We should have a debate between this Pastor Wright and that FOAMING AT THE MOUTH CHRISTIAN ZIONIST nutcase that just endorsed McCain. Better yet… a BOXING MATCH. I wouldn’t bet on the white guy.
I heard my man, Rev. Sharpton telling Tucker that Billy Graham met with Clinton in the White House, carrying a message of Antisemitism. Gawud I love that guy.
Obama has to be seen as someone not repeating himself.
He has to be able to break out of the mold he is being cast into.
Why are we giving such importance to these divisive voices? In their comfortable book lined rooms with all the ameneties of life?
What are their relationships with those closest to them? How do they fill their everyday roles?
Ask the women who are in real relationships with men, where both genders really work hard to make ends meet and respect and love each other.
Who are they voting for?
Please, let these cushy literatis and their contracts bark on the sidelines. Derive your own line of sight.
Post Script:
The racial divide in the Mississippi primary would have been much narrower, even non-existent, IF 25% of Clinton’s White Voters weren’t Republicans taking their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. That’s a felony in Ohio. Probably carries a fine in Mississippi, unless you’re white.
This is per Chris Matthews, hardly a conspiracy theorist out here on the “internets.”
For all the talk about race vs gender, I haven’t seen any anti-woman remarks from Obama supporters the way I’ve seen anti-black remarks from the Clintons’. It’s the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media floating this dichotomy, not Obama. The former have nothing better to talk about and the latter love identity issues because they’re so much easier to write about than policy issues that require in-depth research.
I’m sorry to say that McCain looks anointed since it seems that the voting public is not ready for the likes of Obama or Clinton. Be wary of the Repuglican Veep nominee.
ezyflyer___ You say— the GOP is voting for Hillary, what else do we need to know?
For one thing we need to know (or remember), the Repugs have a lot of tricks up their sleeve, and if their Master, Rush, tells them to vote that way, there is reason for it. They know that will turn many Dems away from supporting her and of course, many have taken the bait.
It may well be they are more concerned about facing Hillary than Obama, but they will not admit that. You have to be a little dense to believe they are voting for Hillary so she will win. Remember, Rove is still available for advice, and he usually has quite a bag of tricks. Wise up , Dems, and be skeptical of something so obviously another calculated move.
It seems to me that the clinton campaign and its surrogates are getting desperate. All of the polls show two conclusions, (1) she cannot mathematically win the majority of the pledged delegates, she does not have the greatest number of voters, she does not have the greatest number of states races won, (2) all of the polls show that 40+% of the electorate say they “will not” vote for her!!
I disagree with the premise that Obama is winning because he is “black”. I think that some people will vote for Barack because he is black but I believe just like Dr. MLK stated those many years ago that people should be l judged on the content of the character and not the color of their skin. If anyone had the talent, education, and charisma of Barack Obama , be they red, white, brown, yellow, black or polka dot and presented themself with the same clarity and purpose of mind as Obama then they would get my backing and my vote each and every time.
If BHO makes it to the WH (should he live that long), forget about Repugs, the Dims will destroy him for being an outsider and “stepping outside his place”. They did the same to Carter. We’re just supposed to forget what disgusting animals they really are. Vote Leonard Peltier for Pres. Voting the lesser of evils has brought us to the brink of economic and social collapse. Like people who waited til the 29th of the month to figure out how they’re going to pay their mid-4-digit rent. It’s a little late.
Peace.
You are right, luckylefty. If BHO lives that long - and that is not a given if he is the candidate and he is skunking McCain in the electorate.
Not only is McCain looking anointed, he’s acting the part - in Iraq with Cheney! Sure, he went there with someone else, but is following in Cheney’s footsteps, and even sitting in the chair Cheney sat in. Any bets on them having their heads together in private, plotting the next step? Maybe how Cheney (or perhaps his un-gay daughter) will be the next VP?
While we’re scattered, that party has come together like magnets, putting their dislike/disdain/etc., for McCain behind them and taken him up as their champion. “The Master has spoken. We must fall in line now.”
It would help if more on the “left” remembered what the whole point of the “left” has been — equality. It is not equality just of the sexes or of races or ethnicities. It has always been about the equality of all people.
We can be divided up by race, gender, ethnicity, ancestry, color, economic class, educational level, intelligence, interests, employment, attractiveness, geographic location, sexual preference, height or weight, health history, etc… But those who fall prey to the allure of one powerful identity, such as that of race or gender, are easily manipulated by fascist interests into supporting candidates merely on the basis of that identification, even when those candidates are not committed to the idea of equality for all people, though they might be known for promoting causes associated with that identity group.
And if the fascists succeed at getting an identity candidate elected who is a fascist at heart, surely more of the same would be likely in the future, with each identity candidate claiming that his or her “turn” had arrived, e.g. a fascist from identity group A followed by one from identity group B, then C, D … That would all provide an image of fairness and equality when it was anything but.
Gary Younge’s piece is filled with so many untruths and historical inaccuracies, he can only be playing identity politics himself. Not a pretty place for a journalist, but par for the course. Cady Stanton became political THROUGH THE ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT. Women, she found were not allowed even to be in the same room sa men discussing the issue at a seminal abolitionist forum in London. She was right then and had a damn good argument. SHe was talking of educated voters, vs. uneducated voters, which is something we might all relate to in this country at this time in history.
It took women 100 years more to get any political power and we are still far more underrepresented than black people are generally in government. Notice how no one wants to talk about gender representation, only the politics of race. It seems to me if you are a true anti-racist, any way, your first message should be that race is a myth perpetuated to keep darker people and those with different features or cultures down. It’s that simple.
Ferraro was also right. No woman could get the hero worship Obama is getting. White dems are stepping all over themselves in a search for psychological redemption for white guilt.
Younge is doing nothing less than attacking feminism here. Too bad, Gary, you sexist and hypocrite, you just deepened the rift you claim to call out.
Just for the record, I am a fellow progressive. You liberals are truly making many of us lose our lunch daily — including CD’s editors, who refuse to play a fair hand in this game. Par for the course.
KIVALS: Excellent post. I intended to bring up a similar point… what’s all this fighting over crumbs? The concept of the Rainbow Coalition had it right: like the “right” all groups with an interest in furthering freedom need to bond together. There must be an over-arching purpose beyond benefits for a few to a coalition so strong it will bring greater benefits to ALL. Sadly, in a nation so much about brand-names and categorization, the capacity to recognize the fundamental UNIFYING points is lost when each identifies too narrowly with his or her arena of interest.
Remember that power has always maintained its hold by arranging those without it fight among themselves for mere crumbs, rather than look to the established order to take down the pyramid of privileges and in its wake assemble something ultimately more democratic and unifying. This necessity has been with mankind for cenuries and various experiments in government, particularly our own, have sought to enact it. By this I mean the quintessential blueprints, a governing DESIGN where 3 co-equal branches divide power that more interests have a chance of being fairly represented. We know what the diastrous never-elected unity exec has done with this.
annika,
Rest assured, if the woman running for president were someone like, say, off the top of my head, Naomi Klein, Barbara Ehrenreich, Amy Goodman, Barbara Lee, Cynthia Mckinney, Cindy Sheehan, Sr. Joan Chitteser or Kathy Kelly, I would put my full support behind them.
Disclosure: I’m a white man and I don’t like Obama or Hillary.
oops,
Cynthia McKinney IS running for President…
It’s the DLC and sold out DNC establishment VS a mild progressive wanting to put out the tentstakes… enlarge the party… and let the people move us in new directions.
This has nothing to do with race and gender except in a few isolated cases.
The people that jump to that conclusion in EVERY discussion are like the Christio-Zionists screeching ‘antisemitism’ every time someone suggests Israel might be a tad wrong.
It takes a village to eat a family.
I can’t believe someone just called this editorial “sexist.” That is serious and irrational escalation into HIGH WARBLE. Remind me not to put you on the stand…
annika said “Ferraro was also right. No woman could get the hero worship Obama is getting. White dems are stepping all over themselves in a search for psychological redemption for white guilt.” Enjoy your ice cream alone.
Yeah I’m sure Barack Obama is doing as well as he is because he’s black and beautiful. I mean look what it did for Rodney King. Give me a break.
That’s just racist pigeon-holing the most serious Antiwar Candidate the Democratic Party has put up in its history since Bobby Kennedy and you know it.
I could go through the mantra of lies that Hillary tells her supporters about her vote to invade and occupy Iraq, undermine ethics reform, and support for private military contractors, (not to mention the questions of who killed Vince Foster and why was Marc Rich pardoned?), but here are some solid electoral arguments for having an actual Antiwar Candidate at the top of the Democratic Party’s ballot in 2008 since Cackle and Whine has essentially lost her bid after Florida’s decision today:
1. Clinton’s marginal victories in big states only shows what 16 years of saturating the media markets with the Clinton name can do to humanize her to the American public. And apparently not much in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, and Texas (where Obama won caucuses + primaries) or critical Mountain West swing states like Colorado.
Not to mention the fact that in Ohio she lost all three major cities: Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, not to mention Dayton. Do you really think the Reagan Democrats are going to vote for her against McCain? I wouldn’t bet on it.
2. Missouri + Virginia + Colorado are now all swing states with 33 electoral votes between them. Had Kerry won any two of these three states he would have won.
Not to mention
Wyoming has a Democratic Governor, Kansas has a Democratic Governor, Montana has two Democratic Senators, North Dakota has two Democratic Senators, and Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota each have a Democratic Senator. Add those states together and you got 30 electoral votes.
Great Plains + Mountain West + Virginia & Missouri = 63 electoral votes.
Ohio + Pennsylvania (48% registered Democrats to 40% registered Republicans, likely to go Democratic)= 41 electoral votes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/electoral.college/
If we are serious as Progressives about who has the best chance of defeating John McCain in a year when the Conservative base is likely to stay home, it is not the Democratic candidate that motivates them to get out and vote and who motivates Obama supporters to stay home.
Obama/Pelosi 2008!
Military Contractors
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/03/17/response_to_clinton_attacks_on.php
Ethics
“Clinton’s rarely been the threat to the business community that many on the right typically allege… She advocated weakening the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, telling Feingold to “live in the real world.” Unlike Edwards and Obama, she accepts campaign contributions from lobbyists and corporate PACs. “Ask them why they don’t take money from lobbyists,” Wolfson retorts. “We’re proud of our support.”
“Hillary, Inc.”
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman
The Republicans who controlled the Senate last year refused to let it come up. And on Jan. 12, before the details of the proposal had been disclosed, Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat in charge of his party’s fund-raising as head of the senatorial campaign committee, used a run-in on the Senate floor to deliver an angry rebuke to the disclosure idea’s lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, several people present or briefed on the confrontation said.
In a subsequent conversation, Mr. Schumer said he worried that the proposal could cramp fund-raising by placing an undue burden on potential bundlers, said aides who were briefed and a lawmaker familiar with their talk, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the nature of the talks.
“Senator Obama has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,” said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html
Iraq
Hillary Clinton did not vote for more inspectors. She voted for more war. In fact, the resolution that she voted for has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.
What H.J. Resolution 114 “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq” actually says:
“Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.”
[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.” http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]
“The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf
“It is noteworthy, then, that Senator Clinton voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.
If Senator Clinton believes the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq because of that country’s violation of Security Council resolutions, other Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other states that are in material breach of UN Security Council resolutions, such as Israel, Morocco, Turkey, Armenia, Pakistan and India . Her insistence on the right of the United States to unilaterally invade foreign countries because of alleged violations of UN Security Council resolutions seriously undermines the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and thereby opens the door to international anarchy.”- Stephen Zunes, Professor of Political Science, The University of San Francisco
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/23/7245/
“Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren’t really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That’s the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…
We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.”- Barack Obama, the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
“Sexism and racism have different histories and operate in different ways. To try to simply exchange one for the other - even for rhetorical purposes - won’t teach you much about either.”
Oh but it does. It teaches we men that radical feminists hate us and will employ gender and racial politics to achieve their quest for power. This is their weakness and will be their downfall. Balance and mutual respect are the true keys to progress.
“if being a black man is such an electoral advantage, then how is it that they make up 6% of the population and only 1% of the senate (Obama)?”
According to the census bureau, the US population is almost 13% “black or African American” (source:
The black minority nationally becomes a majority in some states for the Democratic primary. Hillary could argue that the smaller black demographic means that Democratic primary results won’t mirror the broader electorate voting in the fall.
The black majority in the Democratic Party in some states like South Carolina will be greatly diluted in the General Election. Also, many states with large black minorities tend to be in the South which is with the exception of Florida and Arkansas pretty Republican. Neither Democratic candidate could win there easily, even if 100% of all blacks voted and voted for the Democrat.
Ranking racism against sexism is a new twist on the same old divide-and-rule strategy ruling classes have used from the time they first
stole their positions of privilege. The fact that the Clintons and the Demagogic Losership Cabal have been so willing to fall into that
trap is revealing. The “first black president”(gawd, was that a stupid statement!) seems to have no quibbles about turning his back on his “brothers” when it is expedient…but wait, what did he accomplish for women while in office? Why that would be the Family Medical
Leave Act, which was a reform weaker than bus station chili. It serves to antagonize management while doing virtually nothing for working
women OR men. And let’s remember Hillary’s lovefest with the insurance companies which was presented as “universal coverage”, but was, in fact, a way to undermine a single-payer proposal which was on the floor of the house at the time(as a player in the campaign for single-payer, at the time, let me assure you that I hold grudges).
If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for him with little enthusiasm. If Clinton is the nominee, I will abstain. This is not sexism; this is simply an indication that I am capable of paying attention.
These elections show a drastic difference between the DNC and the GOP. One could hear real debates on the republican side, see people with radically different idea. Compare McCain with Huckaby with Guiliani with Romney. Yet, the DNC shows a whole range of indistinguishable characters, whose policies are very similar, and the only real deal-maker is their claim for victim-hood. Seriously, what’s the difference between Obambi and Hillary? Both are socialists (excuse my french). And yet, the hatred between the supporters of these two candidates is significant. It is easy to imagine that the supporters of the candidate that loses won’t support the other DNC candidate. If Hillary goes through, the blacks can concievably ignore the elections. Womyn activists may stay home if Obambi wins.
The DNC played the victim card for too long. It’s pay back time. As Obambi’s pastor said - chickens are coming to roost. Have fun, guys. I sure am happy.
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/
The US Constitution does not discriminate against race or gender, so why do Democrats?
Shall I call you Doug, or useful stooge? Obama is not against the war. He funds it. He has not committed to pulling out troops. He has threatened to bomb Pakistan. And he is backed by Wall Street, who largely invented the Obama bubble you’re tripping on. And Doug, please don’t call me a racist when you can’t admit that as a man, Obama, despite his blackness, still enjoys the political benefits of being a man. Will you deny him that? Please also do not assume I am a Hillary supporter. I am not. I would never ever support an idiot Dem and as long as all of you do, we’ll be having these same dumb conversations instead of moving to new ways of doing politics, which are inevitable.
Divide and conquer. Shiites vs. Sunnis, Whites vs. Blacks, Men vs. Women, Obama vs. Clinton. It’s never poor vs. rich, though, is it? Oh, that’s classism—Marxism, how unamerican! McCain and the WASPs have gotta be lovin this. The neocons must be smiling at their prospects to proceed further down Hegemony Road. Not that uniting Obama and Clinton would do anything to help a populist progressive movement. They are both corporatists, quite willing to continue U.S. military aggression. Still better than a war nut like McCain, though.
cranky_chatter said: This is per Chris Matthews, hardly a conspiracy theorist out here on the “internets.”
Cranky, obviously you have not been watching Chris Matthews, the Hillary hater, or even following the news about him. You might want to educate yourself about Matthews. Otherwise you would not written the above.
annika,
Barack Obama said it all about your kind of politics today. Like a typical Hillary reporter, you jump to the conclusion I called you a racist because you inherently feel the guilt of making a comment which I rightly criticized as racist, not you the person. Just take a step back and think about that phenomenon. The Gerraldine Gerk Reaction.
Oh and then you say, if he were a woman… BECAUSE YOU CAN’T ACCEPT HIM FOR HIMSELF. FACT: He rocked the Clinton Pro-War Faction you defend by raising more money in February than any candidate in American history, has mobilized more Americans than any candidate in American history, and did it in spite of sexist Hillary’s supporters hate for men and apparent support from misguided sexists like yourself. Whatever benefits he gets for being a man pale in comparison to Hillary’s advantages going into this election. GET REAL.
And by the way, if you don’t support democracy in Pakistan, go ahead, vote for McCain. I really don’t give a shit.
“McCain Outspoken in Defense of Musharraf”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/28/mccain_outspoken_in_defense_of.html
“Killing Ourselves in Afghanistan”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/10/taliban/
“When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland…
…I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.”- Sen. Barack Obama, the next President of the United States
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=269510
————————–
What Some People Who Live in Pakistan Think
“The United States is a democratic government, and democratic governments should work for democratic values across the globe. Pakistan is no exception.”- Pakistan Supreme Court Justice Rana Bhagwandas
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/world/asia/06pakistan.html.
What I Think
It’s the same situation everywhere in the world. One group acts, the other doesn’t. The group that acts takes power. How you can think that the Taliban does not exert a destabilizing antidemocratic pull on Pakistani and Afghan politics is beyond me. If we don’t act, the Taliban will.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1650518,00.html
Barack Obama is not against political Islam. Barack Obama is against antidemocratic political ideology. Barack Obama is for rule of law. Barack Obama is against rules written by antidemocratic ideologies.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1628168,00.html