It seems clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president this fall. Nevertheless, it is crucial to clarify how wrong-headed Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been so that the legacy she leaves does no more damage to a multi-racial, multi-class based feminism/womanism both here and abroad.
None of the pundits and journalists appears to be wondering and worrying about black women in this post-Indiana-North-Carolina-West-Virginia moment. Instead, all eyes, and especially Hillary and Bill’s are on the so-called “white-hard-working working class”. Hillary’s preoccupation with white voters is a dead give-a-way of how she thinks about gender, and being a woman. Gender is white to her, like race is black. Bill and Hillary Clinton have thrown African-Americans to the wind because they thought they could play the gender card with its history of whiteness and win.
And here lies the rub. Hillary Clinton presents herself to the electorate as a woman. She argues that she wants to break the glass ceiling of/for gender. But the truth is that she is not simply a woman but both a woman and also white. The very fact that she ignores her own race, in a way that Obama cannot, is proof of the normalized privileging of whiteness. In this instance white is not a color, but the color, the standard, by which others are judged. So she silently, inadvertently but knowingly, uses her color to write her meanings of gender and mobilize older white women and angry white men by doing so. She presents herself as a woman but her real power here is as white. Misogyny — the fear, hatred, punishment, and discrimination towards women — ensures that Hillary’s privilege is her whiteness.
Most often the term white is not spoken alongside the term woman; there is no need. One only specifies color when it is not white. Women are assumed to be white if not specified otherwise, especially if you are speaking about gender or women’s rights, or feminism. Forget the fact that it was a group of black women that initially challenged the Supreme Court in the first sex discrimination case in this country years ago.
Hillary speaks of herself as a woman, and then speaks separately about race, as though she does not embody both at the same time. She has as much ‘race’ as Barack, but her race is not a problem for her. It is for him, even though it may not be as much as a problem as she is trying to make it. As such, Hillary, as a (white) woman pits herself against Barack (as black) with a race so to speak. So Hillary (as a woman) is falsely, wrongly, pitted against Barack (as black). Her whiteness privileges and pits gender against race. She encodes her whiteness as though it is central to her gender, and to her kind of feminism without saying a word. She re-awakens and rewrites the history of 19th century U.S. feminism that pitted black men getting the vote before white women had that right. More recently, women’s rights rhetoric was used to justify the bombing of the Taliban and brown people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Feminism has a history of being bankrupt on this issue so this is nothing new. What is forgotten here is that women’s rights come, or should come, in all colors.
Barack Obama has said he wants to embrace the new notions of race and the racial progress that has occurred. He is not post-racist, but recognizes the newly raced relations as they exist at present. Nevertheless, he must give a speech on race although he says he does not want to be a racial candidate. He recognizes that the country has new-old racial hierarchies with complex identities and that he himself represents white and African blackness, whatever this might mean for him. Meanwhile Hillary says she is running as a woman, and never gives a speech on gender because white angry men and women, would not be pleased by this. So patriarchy, or sexual discrimination, or the structural hierarchy of masculinity with its racialized and class aspects is never mentioned in her campaign. She uses whiteness as her weapon and pretends to be speaking about gender. But she never once mentions the unacceptable misogyny of this country, or the sexual hierarchy of the labor force, or any of the great racial and class inequities that define women’s lives today. This is a misuse and abuse of her gender.
Feminisms of all sorts have moved beyond the idea that feminism is a white woman’s thing; or that feminisms should be particularly beholden to the white mainstreamed part of the U.S. women’s movement. Large numbers of women, especially women of color, but many white women as well, know that race and gender are inseparable and that is why most of these women, whatever their color, are voting for Barack Obama. Hillary should not be allowed to push feminism backwards for her own political ambition. It is not surprising that it is older white women who disproportionately support her. They identify with old notions of womanhood-a homogenized notion that all females share an identity, and race and class are not connected issues to be named and spoken. This is why younger women and progressive women from the civil rights and women’s movements, some of whom are older, disproportionately support Obama.
My thoughts about Hillary Clinton have their own history, which also coincide with her history. I have not been a fan of hers. I have written critically of her for more than a decade now. She has never spoken on behalf of women or as a candidate with a woman’s agenda, let alone as a feminist when she was in the White House. Many of us who are her contemporaries were active in the Civil Rights Movement and Women’s Movements and Anti-Vietnam War movement — while she chose not to be. Her one speech addressing the exploitation of women was delivered in Beijing, China, as though it is women outside, but not inside the U.S. who face untold discrimination. Now she runs for president and has become a gun-toting, war mongering white woman who asks for your vote if you are an angry white Reagan Democrat. Maybe she thinks manly gender is the answer for breaking glass ceilings for women.
I would argue that she is not breaking gender boundaries but rather has embraced and extended masculine/misogyny for females. And misogyny always comes in racialized form. She remains female in body and hence parades as a decoy for feminist claims. And her white self is central to this decoy status. Susan Faludi wrote in the New York Times that Hillary is having a success with white male support because she is willing to battle, and engage in rough play like one of the boys. She is supposedly willing to “join the brawl” and as such has won their confidence. She has “broke through the glass floor and got down with the boys” opening the way for women to finally make it “through the glass ceiling and into the White house”. Barbara Ehrenreich in The Nation hesitantly embraces this assessment and then more forcefully criticizes Clinton for her ruthlessness. Ehrenreich writes that Clinton has “smashed the myth of innate female moral superiority in the worst possible way…demonstrating female moral inferiority.”
Hillary has proven that sometimes the best man for the job may be a female posing to be a man. In other words, Hillary has simply clothed herself in men’s tactics and strategies. She can nuke with the best of them. Hillary not only authorized the war in Iraq but she repeatedly continued to do so for several more years — up until the time she began running for president. She allowed, along with Bill Clinton, the egregious trade blockade against Iraq as hundreds of thousands of children starved to death after the ‘91 war. She more recently has supported Israel’s terror bombing of Lebanon and has newly endorsed “the total obliteration” of Iran.
But this is just part of the sad story. Hillary’s embrace of a masculinist machismo embraces the very misogyny that most feminists want to dismantle. Instead of challenging the gender divide Hillary simply slides over to the other side of it. Instead of offering a new vision of what it might mean to have a female president she offers us old versions of white privilege and war mongering. But the structural privilege of patriarchy is ignored and obfuscated with Hillary’s race card.
Nevertheless many (white) women write, like Marie Cocco in the Washington Post (May 15, ‘08), that she won’t miss the misogyny of the campaign when it’s over — she lists the sexist T-shirts, and array of commercial goods circulating at present. While I abhor any form of degradation of girls and women, or any human being for that matter, I am also hesitant to see this as a sufficient critique of the problem.
Hillary Clinton should never be demeaned for being a woman. But being a woman comes in all colors and classes. Hillary has done the unforgivable. She has used race — the whiteness card — on behalf of gender. We, the big “we” — the huge diversely defined feminisms in this country and across the globe — are better than this. Black feminists in this country, during the 1970’s and 80’s women’s movement made sure to break open the race/gender divide and clarify that gender is always racialized and race is always gendered. No person ever experiences one with out the other. Only when whiteness parades as an invisible standard can you think that gender and race can be separate. As such Hillary is white and a female and Barack is black and male. They are each both. Everyone is.
Hillary’s manipulation and misrepresentation of her gender reveals her sexual decoy status. Being female is not enough to allow one to claim their gender as a political tactic. Such claims must be rooted in a commitment to end gender discrimination and their racial and class formulations; not pit races and classes against each other in the hopes of being the first woman president. Clinton does not share a political identity with women of all classes and colors and nations simply because she has a female body. She first needs to claim that body and demand rights for it — reproductive, day care, health, education, etc. She has no multi-racial woman’s agenda because she has no anti-racist agenda. Meanwhile she is thrilled that she won big in West Virginia. West Virginia is “almost heaven” to Hillary. She says it shows the country that she can win the “hardworking white Americans” in November. But West Virginia is not heaven, nor is it like much of the rest of the country. It may look like what the U.S. used to be, but that is exactly the point. It does not have the diversity of color, age, culture that defines the U.S. today. Neither does Hillary’s vision.
Hillary is a sexual decoy. She looks like a woman but is not a feminist nor does she speak for or on behalf of most women. She speaks for white people while identifying with her gender, as a woman. But she has trumped herself here. If a female prepares to bully the rest of the world with war and white privilege hopefully we — the big “we” — the “we” that spans across our differences will defeat the political forces she represents. And this means building a coalition for the November elections that makes sure that a non-misogynist agenda is part of the anti-racist politics of the Obama campaign.
Zillah Eisenstein is professor of politics at Ithaca College, a feminist anti-racist activist, and author of ten books in feminisms and feminist theories across the globe. Her most recent book is Sexual Decoys: Gender, Race and War in Imperial Democracy (London: Zed Books, 2007).
She’s a poser. Poseur? poseuse? A shallow, narcissistic slinger of the jargon-du-jour, generally Wall-Street-inspired, whatever gets her into the next power-slot. I saw that in her when Slick Willy first got elected. Why none of the media have challenged her on her anti-worker, anti-democratic, anti-woman (white or black or purple) complicity in Wal-mart’s predatory business practices is a mystery to me. A little honesty there would turn that hideous reptile into a small pile of dust.
Hear Hear! Past time for a woman president, but not this woman. Bottom line is that she is coin-operated. Whatever special interest pays last gets her vote. It will be nice to see the back of her as I confident we will.
Goose2,
Obama is coin operated too. He is Hillary’s political twin. The problem with Obama is that once he gets elected white people will say all the racial issues are over. The deeply ingrained instititional racism that runs this country will be largely ignored by Obama. He is a race (and class) accomodator.
Nothing’s going to change under his presidency.
Compare Hillary’s response to the Sean Bell case to Obama’s. At least Hillary was pushing for addressing the issues at another level and trying to get some measure of justice. Obama basically said, take your medicine and don’t riot. Now, what was pathetic. That’s the kind of crap, white leaders have been telling blacks for centuries.
HRC: narcissist, liar, sociopath, reptile. A former victim of Rovian politics — who responded to this experience by studying & imitating Rove. There’s nothing she wouldn’t sink to, if there was something in it for her.
And yes, of course it’s true that Obama is “coin operated” too. He’s also well within the usual confines of militarism & corporatism that define mainstream US politics. If he wasn’t within those confines, he wouldn’t be there at all. He could be twice as “eloquent” and “inspiring” — but if he was offering the slightest serious challenge to corporate power or US militarism, he’d have long since joined Kucinich, Gravel & Edwards on the sidelines.
This is the basic conundrum: the system is designed so that no one can succeed in it, unless they’ve surrendered to its demands in advance. There’s no way to solve this conundrum by “working within the system.”
Resistance is necessary; otherwise, we remain permanently locked into a system dominated by corporate power & militarism. “Resistance” may take a range of forms — but it is certainly something other than continuing to support Democrats. It can include supporting socialists, Greens, or Nader; it should include non-violent civil disobedience. // But to merely accept the supposed “lesser evil” proferrred by the system itself — the Democrats — this is becoming “coin operated” yourself. It’s entirely analogous to Obama’s accepting the tenets of corporatism & militarism, as a prerequisite for his becoming a “viable” candidate.
Brava, Zillah Eisenstein. Thank you for making the complex (relatively) understandable. While Hilary is trying to balance all sorts of important “political” issues as she runs (grovels?) for the nomination, she really has debased decades of hard work. Your article helps “deconstruct” this and, (god, I hope!) helps “powerful” women everywhere understand that ethics and integrity are intrinsic and, if they’re there at all, are there for all to see!
Sorry to see that Hilary may have lost (sold?) her integrity along the way… Meanwhile, we have female leaders out there who will do a better job of balancing politics with humanity - next time.
I like the term ‘coin operated.’ It is so descriptive and true. I would vote for a woman if I felt she was the right person for the job of President, but not Hillary. Hillary is dragging too much heavy baggage to even get through the turnstile to the White House.
This is what our current political system will do to anyone who becomes a member. It destroys your integrity. To play the game you now have to play by the rules set up by the white founding fathers, and modified over the years by their male ancestors. Tragically, all that incest has turned our country into an empire that is now declining into fascism.
Hoa binh
And so it goes! You know I have not a clue why Senator Clinton would even want to put up with all this trashing of herself.
She should have just left America implode on itself>
Look at this article by whoever this character is. Bill and Hillary both got Degrees of law . They never even had to go to Arkansas . They could have just cashed those law degrees in for the American Dream.
But they did not How much did Bill makes as Arkansas’a Attorney General anyway, Or even it’s governor.Why the way this Clinton hater writes they should have ben billionaires as corrupt as he thinks they are.
And all those scandals White Water Or Hillary recieving what a 100 thousand dfrom the Chicken king.Or even the suicide of whatever that person name was. But they got good old Bill for a Monica.
And meanwhhile how many good old Hillary haters on their 2nd or 3rd spouse.
Here you have the first Mr. and Mrs. Clinton
for better or worse isn’t there something like that in the wedding bows.
How about this article writer> What spouse is he or she on? Hahe or she always been completely loyal to his or her spouse
And did this author get out of whatever collage and go back to try to help others achieve ?Well???
Frankly I am sick of this bashing of the Clintons.
Hillary is white. Funny for the longest time both Bill and Hillary have been honored by black people if their is such a thing. It seems the the latinos like them also.
and I believe Bill got a lot of Steins votes.
so this author and a few od the other bashers?
do we know one tthing about them. One mention Carl Rove? are we sure these so called contributers were not swiftboaters You know the ones that claim John Kerry was hardly wounded . did not deserve his medals?
am I to believe that are high and mighty author said some kind things abouut Barack Obama? Funny does not Barack Obama state that he does not want any of this trashing the other candidate.
And come on articlle writerIf in fact Senator Clinton is this always for the white people why would she say this after the election or any election.What a shame our beloved author cannot quote any of the good sayings Senator Clinton has stated .lets see just one off the top of my head . A news report came out maybe 6 months ago about some miltary was ordered at Fort Drum New York not to help the wounded soldiers to fill aouut any disability claims. It was less the a day even though that news was only reprt once or twice on news services, Senator Clinton was already making statements 0n the matter.
and the last time I look it wasn’t only white soldiers that were wounded.
Did Our Beloved Obama make any attempts on any things about his state of Illinois>
I believe there was something about a nuclear leak in Illinois last year sometime.
After he pput out a statement, He did nothing more. What A guy? And I heard Our Beloved Obama also voted for our great Banruptcy law.
I wonder why he never puts that in his credits
by the way Do not Blacks sometimes declare Bankruptcy?Why then Obama actually hurt the Black community.
Oh that is right this was before Obama discovered he was also Black.
Anyone recall the early days of his Presidential Campaign? He sure did not talk like a brother.
And So Obama has the nomination? Hey that is on your heads. Even if he wins we all lose Blacks ,Whites or Purples,but have your fun knocking The Clintons.
Me, I will put Senator Clinton name on my ballot this fall. That is if I and many other are even alloud to vote because we do not have 3 forms of I D and a note from our long dead mothers./I suppose you will also blame The Clintons for this Huh.
Obama or this author. I wonder how many pro Senator Clinton articles were kabosed this last decade . We will never know because most people do not really care as long as they can feel good about themselves knocking somebody else down.
Now all of you go Sing God Bless America.
Got you Ammerican Flag Pin On Do Ya?
Senator Obama found his lol. How about Our Hillary Clinton Hating Author. Somebody check his or her lapel.
You see I am not going back to look at this Authors name again. Why should I altleast aknowledge he or she has a gender. That iis far more kind then the Authors description Of Senator Clinton
Anyway Good day to you all
genaman
this name give one or two n’s. or a capital G is all I ever used on my political responses
I am sure in this garge dump of the internet you could track me down in a nano second.
No do not go blameing Al Gore who invented it.
Blame the sludge that came here to make a buck at any cost.
Whites. I am white so I am told Big deal I am sure not proud of it. But I Am Proud Of Senator Hillary Clinton Almost spending her last million of her own money because she believes in her cause>
I’ll bet our Author does not even give big tips to the servers at the resturant. Oh did I malign him or her? That makes me as bad as him or her? On that I have to leave and go throw uup or cut off my one typiing finger/
GOOD DAY
It is nice to see the crazy Hildebeast lovers losing their mind a little more every day:)
Articles like this one are a complete waste of time. ’nuff said!
Obama is for real. He can and will do and/or be whatever he has to (within reason) to get elected. He has been running for President since he first decided to eschew the big bucks and work on Chicago’s South Side in 1983+/-.
He is a genuine, fine human being, not perfect, but committed and compassionate. His background qualifies him to help us remember that we are all siblings, of the same clan/tribe; to bring us together to effect the changes that this time requires.
My gut/heart tells me that he can and will be our next President. Of course he will not instantly change 20 million racist/sexist beings whose grandaddies taught them about those of another color/species. He will, however, ALLOW us to support him in his efforts to deal with the entire planet as if it were part of our own community, because it, in fact, really is just that.
Ray O. Driskill
Houston, Texas
genaman May 18th, 2008 3:37 pm …May I refer you to a DVD entitled, “The Clinton Chronicles”. It’s very good to have as much info as possible on the candidates you support.
If the author is claiming that Clinton is trying to bring racists into the Democratic party (or that pandering to racists won her the last primary) - then why doesn’t she say so openly.
Hillary Clinton has French Canadian ancestry and Obama is related by blood to Dick Cheney. This doesn’t make Clinton a friend to Canada or Obama a Republican.
RE: His background qualifies him to help us remember that we are all siblings, of the same clan/tribe; to bring us together to effect the changes that this time requires.
Having a white mother and half Indonesian sister does that to a person.
But is there anything in Obama’s history which would make it less likely that we will have another Maher Arar - or is it just that there are a few things in Clinton’s background which make it more likely?
RE: He could be twice as “eloquent” and “inspiring” — but if he was offering the slightest serious challenge to corporate power or US militarism, he’d have long since joined Kucinich, Gravel & Edwards on the sidelines.
Edwards would have made the best President of the three. I hope that he got something in return (concerning his agenda) in exchange for his support of Obama. Edwards wants to get corporate money out of politics - so how does endorsing Obama help the cause?
Clinton’s life has been so dysfunctional for so long she has lost all sense of pride. She will do anything for the White House.
I still don’t count her out. She will keep going until she gets it. If not 2008 then later.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I’ve been combing the web for months for this nuanced opinion about the race/gender dynamic. And none of the visible feminists (white of course) have been willing to make this call. Black women feminists took white feminist to task for their tendency to univeralize the range of women’s experiences.
This is exactly why I can not support Hillary, although I was a fan of hers for many years. She has utilized her whiteness and privilege in ways (patriarchal to the core) that any feminist of today would find despicable - especially when it comes to race and class issues. I’ve been hoping that Obama would follow up his brilliant speech on race with one on class to address his “bitter” misinterpretation. I want to hear a speech that draws the parallels between gender, race, class, and sexuality - but that will have to wait for another generation.
BRAVO Ms. Eisenstein!! I’ve sent this to friends. Thank you and I wish and hope this brilliant analysis makes it to more mailboxes and on front pages.
The entire world is very tired of hearing about the KKKlintons.
Sounds like this author would like Condi Rice better, and with a little more Hillary bashing, we just might get Condi elected as VP.
The goal is to be teaming Obama and Clinton, not driving dumb wedges. OF COURSE we can all find something (maybe many things) to criticize about Hillary and Bill.
WE ALSO CAN LOSE A PIVOTAL ELECTION. Racism is real.
Hillary fans are real, like ‘em or not. Slapping them with some “nuanced opinion” about Hillary being too white is not only dumb but kinda mean to so many who NEED the government moving left for health care and to get their loved ones home from Iraq.
Win dammit, or what is a liberal’s “article” for?
The Headline: ___”Hillary Is White”. __
Is that bad? ___ hope not, I’m white too and I don’t care if Obama is only half white, or all black, or all white. He’s another human being and we are all the same. We all have our own seperate personalities, intellect, morals and souls. We humans are all humans and our color or race should not be an issue.
Of course Hillary is going after the white middle class votes, and the female votes. So friggin what? Obama is getting over 90% of the black votes and he’d also better be going after the white middle class and female votes, because if he’s the Demo nominee and he don’t have them in November, he’s gonna get his ass kicked by McCain.
the Hillary supporters that dismiss this intelligent and cogent article pointing out what is in plain sight about Hillary, reminds me so much of the republicans from the last 12 years– Ignoring what is in plain sight and pretending that what is happening right in front of our faces is not happening. ( KAtrina, Iraq, Gonzales., torture, habeas corpus…).
what HRC is doing is completely obvious to any sentient being. What is frightening is to think that 1/2 the democratic party actually has no problem acting like exactly like a republican. And they talk, like many have done posting to this piece, as if stating the obvious makes you untrustwothy, and are to be dismissed out of hand. LIke when Sean Hannity dismisses anyone with a good idea as a “Liberal” so now you don’t have to listen to them.
ANyway, I could go on forever about this phenomenon, but it is frightening how little 1/2 the democratic party seems to care that hey are exactly as transparent as the bush administration has been. Wow. Makes me sad for America.
Order of Importance of Human Beings
1. White Male conservatives with income over $100,000,000 (Hundred million dollars)
2. White femaile conservatives with income over $100,000,000
3. Black (includes any people of color) conservatives with income over $100,000,000
4. White conservatives with over $1,000,000 (one million dollars)
5. Other people of color conservatives with income over $1,000,000
6. White conservatives, religious christian extremists, Isreal supporters, dictators of third world countries that allow the US corporations to exploit their country, Nazi fascist bastards who don’t speak publicly about their personal views (Note: exception for Rush Limbaugh, he is allowed to speak publicly).
7. People of color conservatives, religious christian extremists, Isreal supporters, dictators of third world countries that allow the US corporations to exploit their country, and Terrorists (yes, ‘terrorists’ help our war economy going, get George Bush reselected, and keep the people in line out of fear).
8. Liberal millionaires (unless they vocally support the democratic candidate)
9. Dogs
10. Everybody else (exception-see below)
The following are not considered for inclusion due to lack of any importance:
Arabs (includes Iraqi, Iranians, Palestinians and when Saudi Arabia turns off the gas spigot, Saudis), Native American Indians, factory workers, Uninsured citizens, any civilians in a country the US will attack, peace organizers, Union scum, environmentalists, human rights activists.
have a nice day…
RICH GRIFFIN: You don’t get it, do you? I guess being a male you are really clueless to what women have experienced over history, and why TRUE feminists see Hillary for the sell-out that she is.
JIMMY JIMMY: I am glad you see the light here!
It IS a brilliant article, and ultimately the items it relates transcend Hillary; for it speaks in larger terms about race and gender and the hierarchy that still deploys both of these to divide and conquer. The person who can see past these divisions or wishes to transcend them is one I’d like to see govern, rather than one who plays one side against another.
Yes Hillary is white, but for the sake of argument, does this article do anything but further divide the Democratic party. John McCain wouldn’t seem to stand a chance, but the old adage remains true “Divide and Conquer”.
Eisenstein’s piece is a quite good primer to Hillary Clinton, but ignores the elephant in the room: the generational difference. She is a creature of her demographic (over 50 white women) and all the baggage that comes with it. That is why the post-boomer generations are going big time for Obama, as they are keen to leave the battles that McCain and his ilk and her have been fighting since the 60’s (and dominating the national agenda to the detriment of the interests of the younger demographic groups) behind and tackle newer problems (climate change, cyber-issues, & a multi-power world scene where friends and enemies are not clear cut) that most older types have problems comprehending.
Bravo, well written perhaps we finally have a leftist feminist who can step into Lucy parsons rather large shoes.
Unbelievable. The discussion has deteriorated into black vs white, male vs female.
I concur with previous sentiments. These issues are ignited by the MSM propaganda machine, and Educators whom are bought and owned by the elite tax free foundations that provide the universities with endowments. They are simply diversions from the real issues. Racism, Feminism, anti-semitism, etc are all tools the elite use to divide you. Tackle the real issue of a corrupt fascist government, and to the extent these other issues exist, and they do exist, they will disappear.
Divide and Rule baby. Much of the herd has lost the ability to think and are willing to be led to their fate, following the “comfort diversions” the elite propaganda machine provides.
Baa baa sheeple, have you any brains?
Yes sir, yes sir, and one vote too!
One vote for Barack Black Guy Obama, who promises Change! Baa!.
Some say he is a Wolf, who hates White Christians! Oh My!
One vote for the Hillary White Lady Clinton,
the breaker of Gender Ceilings! Baa!
Some say she is a sexual decoy, and represents male privilege! Betrayed!
One vote for John White Guy McCain, to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and
Keep us sheeple safe!. Daddy, I am scared!
Some say he might bomb more than Iran! Kill all dem Terrarists for Zion!
Black Guy, White Lady, White Guy, no matter,
All serve the same Masters.
The Globalist Elite, who lives down the lane.
Laughing all the way to the bank, in service of the Queen.
Baa?
the blogspheres, the university lectures, they can do so much, they can do so much to empower a conversation.
what we need to recognize is having a society without problems is actually quite easy to achieve, poverty, energy self sufficiency, these are easy problems to solve,
the difficulty is in letting go of how comfortable and how used to having these problems are. they give us an identity and meaning. the meaning however is simply unfair.
the difficulty lies in realizing, what then? what happens after we become a utopian society with no war or violence? then what to do we do?
think of how bored god must be, he knows everything, he creates everything, no wonder why he makes such wonders in the world, he has so much time on his hands.
Prof. Eisenstein writes: “She more recently has supported Israel’s terror bombing of Lebanon and has newly endorsed “the total obliteration” of Iran.”
Obama, too, fully supported Israel’s devastating assault on Lebanon. He has also said that “the nuclear option” would remain “on the table” in his dealings with Iran. Let’s keep our critical wits about us: Obama’s record & platform are not all that far-removed from Clinton’s imperialistic vision, though his vote against the invasion of Iraq continues to be his saving grace and a source of promise.
(Btw, to Words Are Important May 18th, 2008, at 9:20 pm: Iranians aren’t Arabs.)
That’s right Iranians aren’t Arabs, they are humans and so are Arabs, Jews, Africans, Indians, etc. And those lines drawn on maps do not really exist. That problem began a long long time ago.
I don’t like Hillary much either, but why beat her up (figuratively) for being white?
This article hints at, but does not clearly articulate, the fact that Obama’s sex brings its own set of expectations - some of which help (many believe males are stronger leaders)and some of which do not (African-American males are feared, Rove refers to him as effete, etc.). Perhaps the “bitter” comment would not have been as controversial, maybe his knowledge of arugula would not have seemed so strange - and maybe Huckabee would not have made his “joke” at the NRA convention -if Obama were female. In another line, if it is somehow sexist to critize Clinton over “sniper-gate,” were the swift-boat attacks on Kerry also sexist? Arguably, “sniper-gate” is not sexist - there was actual footage of her receiving flowers on the runway - but the “swift-boating” of Kerry was - he was seen, by many, as too soft, too effete, too “girly” to be a war hero - if it was otherwise, the criticism would not have stuck.
Truly exceptional piece.
Those who continue to support Clinton–and for the very life of me I can’t imagine why, gives credence to the truth:
You can fool some of the people all of the time.
Obama is far from ideal–but he is far far far better–in every measurement, than Clinton and kicking the Clintons to the curb could be the first step out of the DLC cesspool that has kept us stagnating and spirally down for so long.
I find it curious that people would argue about what sort of gender or race label would identify a candidate as the greater victim of history and therefore the more deserving of an opportunity to preside over and manage the US empire to victimize most people on earth.
Yo Boo,
Ugh! You people do know both C & B are hard to the left.
Next step is being a commie, gasp - ugh! You NEED to vote
for what the person really stands for (Obma sit for 20 years
in a church that is just like the KKK - only for the blacks
His wife said For the FIRST time in her life she is proud to
be an American, etc etc so what to you get from this?)
or Ohmama H - she is white & female. Great back ground for
her - she sleeps with the president & knew everything.
Both will make great military commander, huh? Obama - will
do as HE wants despite his military input from the field
commanders & what they say. Sounds like Bush, huh.
Oh H, the woman…by just being a woman she knows more than
any military man, huh? She has been under fire, remember?
Both are jokes. If you want a hard to the left anti-American, they are ready.
McCain has been in combat. Trained professional military
person too. So of the 3 who do you pick????? May be it is
time to start a new party of the people, by the people
for the people (never a comminest type). Or at least put
a fixed term lemit on these guys & gals. Seems once they
get in their only idea is to keep being elected & not
do what they are really there for. To run the nation in a
decent respectful, honest way. Me? Only one way to go, McCain
is my person. Poor as it is.
Any way folks, do Vote. It is the American way.
but please research, THINK, then vote.
George
your favoright neocon, retired army combat officer & Texican
No kivals, what is particularly odious is how Clinton is exploiting race and gender.
Women should be ashamed to support Clinton based on her gender. She gives us no reason, other than her gender, to be proud that she represents us–rather she shames us and personally, as a woman, she disgusts me. This last desperate push, to round up the girls, standing in front of bourbon barrels, with all the leisure-class feminists rallying to her side,is just the latest hollow strategy
Would you vote for Bush if he were a woman?
This Clinton-Obama debate is becoming more heated than the Canada Russia game yesterday.
Many of us used to be Edwards supporters. And we would have been Edwards supporters if Edward’s father was Black and first name was Jane. I liked his talk about getting the smooch money out of politics.
No one who supports Clinton has ever told me how they could after the Michael John Hamdani incident - maybe they do because the the Michael John Hamdani incident - I want to know.
None of the Clinton supporters have ever addressed the Michael John Hamdani issue. To refresh memories, MJH was a small time forger who thought that he could get a smaller sentence if he could claim that he gave Canadian passports to terrorists. The RCMP figured that the story was BS, but the FBI took him seriously. It all turned out to be a hoax. Clinton, in a climate where Muslims (and those who looked like Muslims) were being beaten up, went on live TV and told the world exactly where she thought these five fictional terrorists entered the US from Canada. After Clinton was caught in a lie, she refused to appologise, not only to Canada, but to all Canadians and Americans of Muslim descent as well as all Sikhs of both countries.
Clinton supporters, how can you still vote for her after that! Shouldn’t the fact that she was willing to capitalize on the weakest in society so as to further her political aims disqualify her from higher office! I am going for Obama more out of default than anything.
Wish that Edwards was still in the race …
If a republican woman ran the same campaign that Hillary Clinton has run she would be under constant attack by^people who support Clinton for being a right wing racist but because she has a cult following of women over 50 and is somehow considered a femminist she is given a pass despite her horrific campaign.
“I see the White House is like a subway – you have to put in coins to open the gates.” – Johnny Chung (1997) on the Clinton White House. Hillary anyone?
Bill is still right now taking almost a million dollars cash for ‘pushing/lobbying’ FOR the Columbian version of NAFTA, while Mrs. Bill publicly states at this same time that she was always ’secretly against’ the original. Trust HillBilly anyone?
And Bill said way back when that he would fix the original’s ‘faults’ as he rammed it through Congress using Newt’s Republicans near the beginning of his presidency, but somehow never did, even though Hillary was right there with her ‘concerns’? Trust HillBilly anyone?
Is that how the Clintons collected a Hundred Million dollars as they passed ‘go’ in the game? And is that why they so badly want to get back in it? Using any means necessary?
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your roving reporter, Irving Invertebrate.
Hillary Clinton is about to begin this hastily called news conference. We have no idea what she’s going to say but her handlers have told us that she’s about to divulge information that may *salvage* her run for the presidency.
Ladies and gentlemen, Senator Hillary Clinton. …
“My fellow Americans, I’ll get right to the point. My husband, Bill Clinton, who as you can see is standing next to me, is a hopeless dickhead.
“By finally admitting this all-too-obvious fact, I’m hoping that my campaign for president will be revived and eventually successful.
(Thunderous applause.)
“I realize now that during the Monica Lewinsky affair, many of you were turned off by my standing by this useless piece of ****.
(BILL smiles, obligingly.)
“Many of you felt that I stayed with my husband for selfish, opportunistic reasons. WELL, OF COURSE I DID! Jesus H. Christ, any idiot with an IQ greater than their shoe size could have figured that one out. (Ponders what she just said; then, thinking out loud): On the other hand, there sure are a lot of idiot votes out there. (Turns to her husband.) Right, Goober?”
“Sure are, honey-bunch.”
(Pats BILL on the head; gives him a Milk Bone Dog Biscuit): “Good boy! (Turns back to the audience): Now, as I was saying. This sorry excuse for a human being, I want everybody to know, especially the superdelegates, is a disgrace. True, loyal, upright Americans would never stand for his heartless behavior as a husband. The only thing he’s interested in getting upright is his you-know-what.
(BILL blushes): That’s right, honey-bunch.
“Sure, I put up with this philandering pig-dog for over 20 years, but that’s because I figured it would get me a shot at The Big Enchilada. But now that I’m up Sheboegans’ Creek without a paddle, I’m changing course, baby, and pronto!
“Fact is, I’m so desperate for votes, I’m actually gonna try telling the truth. And starting with this putz. (Eyes BILL up and down): Sheesh! Look at him. The guy’s a card-carrying hound dog. Am I right?
(The CROWD screams their approval.)
“Why, he’s not worth a bucket of warm you-know-what. And I don’t mean piss. Let’s face it, he’s a dickhead; and today, before God and Mickey Rooney, I want all the world to know!
(BILL leans into the microphone, smiling): “That’s right, folks, I’m no good. And I can prove it.”
(HILLARY throws BILL another biscuit): “Good boy, Fido. (Turns back to the CROWD): And so, my fellow Americans, I’m kicking this bum out, hoping of course that by doing so I will have finally earned the trust and respect–
(BILL interrupts): and gullibility.
“and gullibility of the American people. Then, if I win the nomination and then the presidency, Bill and I can go back to being the lowlife shysters you all know and want us to be.
(Raucous cheers. The CROWD goes nuts!!!)
Thank you. Thank you, crowd. Because let’s face it, (pauses dramatically) without power, slimeballs like Bill and me are nothing but obnoxious s***s. Right, Bill?”
“That’s right, honey-bitch.”
“WHAT???!!!”
“Err, I mean, honey-bunch.”
The whole idea of Hillary Clinton as some kind of “hero” to women is nothing more than a grotesque joke.
To all those woman who “admire” Hillary … a few questions.
Do you admire how Hillary Rodham tolerated the piggish, uncaring, hurtful behavior of her husband? Not just duing Monicagate but going back to when Bill was first elected governor of Arkansas.
Do you admire how she “stood by Bill” during Monicagate? Stood by him for no other reason than because had she left him — as any self-respecting woman would — had she left him, heaven forfend, she would have ruined her chances to be president.
(Oh, poor Hillary, she can’t be president. Weep, weep, for this poor soul.)
“Women for Hillary — do you say to your young daughters: “Now, there’s a proper role model; there’s someone to admire, someone to look up to, someone to BE like”? A woman who allowed herself to be publicly humiliated, all because she lusted for power.
A woman who allowed her own daughter to have to go through such familial humiliation. And why? Because Hillary Rodham selfishly wanted, as Thomas Hobbes so frankly put it: “power after power, that ceaseth only in death.”
These are the pig-Clintons, Bill and Hillary. Mister and Ms. Sammy Glick.
Remember when Bill was billed as a friend of black America? … I wonder how that squares with Bill’s divisive racial remarks in the recent South Carolina primary. Still, this is America and moemories are short, aren’t they?
But it shouldn’t be said that Bill and Hillary don’t have aspirations. They aspire to be “all things to all people.” All they ask of you is to ignore their blind ambitions.
Bill gladly “Republicanized” the Democratic Party, just to save his own political neck. And here’s “Partner Hillary” doing everything *she* can do to also destroy the Democratic party, all with the hope of wounding Obama so critically that she can run against him in 2012.
It’s a two-fer, folks. Double dynamite!!
Yeah, Hillary’s a role model. Except the role model is that of a selfish, uncaring *strikeout* as a mother, a wife or a normal-feeling human being.
No, this former “Goldwater-gal” deserves just what she’s gotten. And those who consider her to be a role model for young women are sadly and pathetically mistaken.
If someone this bigoted is that fierce a supporter of Sen. Obama maybe it’s time to consider Sen. Clinton?
What if we find out that McCain is into rimming because he likes the taste!
This American concern about the sex lives of politicians!
So Canadians shouldn’t vote for Justin Trudeau just because his mother slept with one of the Rolling Stones while his father was Prime Minister - and then, later after he retired, father (Pierre Elliott Trudeau) had a daughter out of wedlock!
I am not going to vote for Justin Trudeau, but it isn’t because of his parents sexlives - I am not going to vote for him because:
1 - He is a Liberal
2 - He is not running in my riding (ie voting district)
3 - He is only slightly less dimwitted than Ben Mulroney (PM Brian Mulroney’s son).
Major Hutton, ironically enough, your post is a good argument for the re-instatement of literacy tests for voters.
Oh and on McCain, go to Counterpunch for a detailed expose of McCain’s “heroism” while imprisoned by the Vietnamese.
Yes, Professor Eisenstein, Senator Clinton is white, female, christian, married, a mother, a daughter, a sister, a college educated woman, a lawyer and an elected public official. AND, whether you like it or not, a feminist - not just your brand of feminist. So what? So am I. I am also a pragmatis. As a professional women in healthcare, a conservative posture is demanded from women or you may very well find yourself out on the street.
In this majority white country, white women have had a hard time getting their personhood respected; women of color have had an even harder time. . .where the white woman goes, so do other women in this country. Get over it; it is how “things” are done in a world ruled by white men. I highly suspect,it is the same in Africa, Asia, many parts of Europe, South and Central America, etc. The majority male in those countries also rules, or have you notice something different? Do I like it - NO!
Do I like the fact that no religion respects women - NO! But we journey on anyway.
Hillary Clinton is not responsible for the political system in which she operates. She does what she can to make changes and changes she has made. She shepparded the Plan B contraception drug through the Senate, stalled and stopped anti-choice appointments to the reglatory agencies, etc. She has raised a lot of money and run a crediable campaign for President of the United States.
What, of importance have you done, beside write a few rarely read books and raised cane because she isn’t a more “pure” feminist?
I thought the article made sense in a round-about way. And one point is proven, by KEM PATRICK. He states:
“Of course Hillary is going after the white middle class votes, and the female votes. So friggin what? Obama is getting over 90% of the black votes and he’d also better be going after the white middle class and female votes”
Excuse me, but some of the Black voters are females. When you refer to “female votes,” (meaning white females) you are making the writer’s point.
Black people come in two genders. Look it up.
In the computer world, “white” would be what’s known as “the default”. It’s a presumed state unless otherwise specified. Same with “male”. You rarely hear someone talking about the male candidate, say. Another default is heterosexual.
So the title “Hilary is White” is pretty brilliant. It is as confounding as saying “Obama is Male” or “Edwards is Heterosexual”. Say whaa?
If you see six males and no females on a pundit panel the probability that that happened by pure chance is approx .5 to the 6th power or 1.6%.
One male is - 50% chance
Two males - 25% chance
Three males - 12.5% chance
Four males - 6.25% chance
Five males - 3.125% chance
Six males - 1.56% chance
In the United States, if you see a panel of 6 whites, the chances are approximately .66 to the 6th power or 8.3% that it happened by chance.
Yet we see all white, all male power groups constantly and nobody on TV says “Tonight let me introduce our 6 all male all white panelists” even though there is only a .13% (that’s about one tenth of one percent) probability of this composition if everything were fair. But it is considered to be unremarkable, the norm or the default.
Show me with brackets (half/diamond shape will make code disappear)how you got the red to work (please!)
RE: - whether you like it or not, a feminist - not just your brand of feminist. So what?
SES matters. Without accessible and affordable child care most of us could not continue with our education or even work. Wealthy feminists can hire nannies. Child care isn’t a feminist issue for many of those who can hire nannies.
Some Muslim feminists wear the hijab and some don’t - then again there are the “real woman” types in both categories as well. Same for all groups.
RE: - Oh and on McCain, go to Counterpunch for a detailed expose of McCain’s “heroism” while imprisoned by the Vietnamese.
Son of Cain was loyal to his troops, you have to give him that. Bravery is overrated because both good people and evil people can be brave - and both can be cowardly.
Did being a POW affect how Son of Cain views asian and middle-eastern peoples. Did it make a racist out of Son of Cain?
RE: - In the computer world, “white” would be what’s known as “the default”. It’s a presumed state unless otherwise specified. Same with “male”. You rarely hear someone talking about the male candidate, say. Another default is heterosexual.
Why is that? Why should we assume that a person is white male hetrosexual - unless told otherwise? What colour of hair do we assume that they have - unless told otherwise?
Before you read this, I should note that, not only has Jack Layton been opposed to NAFTA since the beginning but that his party, the NDP, has opposed to NAFTA even before it was just known as Free Trade. Note how Van Loan (Harper’s second in command - who has the face of a yawning hamster) goes from saying that this issue is very important to Americans to saying that the Americans have already forgotten about it.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, an internal investigation is not enough and the government knows it. When a junior official from Environment Canada leaked documents that were unfavourable to the government, the Conservatives called in the RCMP and had the young man arrested and handcuffed. However, when the Prime Minister’s chief of staff leaks information in order to help the Republicans in the U.S. election, the Conservatives simply conduct an internal investigation. This smacks of a cover-up.
The question is quite simple: why the double standard?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I welcome back the leader of the NDP from his visit on the U.S. television circuit, which I gather was very successful in reaching the audience he was really trying to reach.
We know this was about NAFTA, which is something we take seriously because NAFTA has been very important for Canada’s economy and has benefited Canada. I am very pleased to see that the leader of the NDP has now come to the table, after years of opposition, to agree with us that NAFTA is important and that we need to do everything we can to preserve positive relations with the United States so we can have a strong trading relationship.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this leak about NAFTA has not only damaged our relationship with a future possible president and damaged the Obama campaign, but it has hurt our relationship with the Americans.
Today we learned about a further problem. Canada’s credibility has taken another blow because an American congressman has pointed out that our trade minister, the government’s trade minister, told him in private that the government was prepared to renegotiate NAFTA, and yet publicly they are saying the opposite.
There is something that the government needs to do here. One, apologize to the American–
The Deputy Speaker:The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that question from the leader of the NDP is totally off base. I cannot understand why he would say that the government is not strongly committed to NAFTA. In fact, on the issue that he was asking about earlier, the risk in this situation is, of course, the possibility of harm to our relations with the United States, which is why we took action quickly. We made our position clear and I will make it again clear, and that has been helpful. The American ambassador himself has indicated that it has been helpful and that the U.S. has moved on from this issue.
We are strong supporters of NAFTA and we continue to be strongly committed to NAFTA. I am glad that the leader of the NDP is coming to the table as a strong defender of NAFTA today as well.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
~OPELUBOY~You assume I meant only white women.
Thank you Namaste
Thank you Namaste
Hey Hillary, so you’re now trying to appeal to the Fox/Rush crowd? Grasping at straws, well since you seem to pander only to “white working americans” how about touting your brand name again out west for another vote in Calif and Texas? I mean with the hispanics and asians now having a real good look at you and your “message and ‘merican values.” Also, rack up the debt, it looks like Murdoch and Fox will reimburse if not reward your “hard work” during this primary campaign. If your goal is to divide the party, well “mission accomplished?” Long time, life time DEM done with Clinton and Pelosi, another brand of GOP lite. Too bad.
Daniel David, keep up the spot on postings, yes we pull from the left to keep the rest of the DEMs “in the middle.” Now I know why Dennis Kucinich wanted his supporters to back Obama in Iowa, BHO won and Hillary has been playing catch up ever since!!!!!
“Hillary is a sexual decoy.”
This is a very strange charge!
I don’t care if she is purple with pink spots and resembles the purple people eater I’m not voting for her.
Just because Hillary is not a ’70s-type, “movement”-type radical feminist, that doesn’t mean she has to be one! She is who she is–a centrist. I’m not for her, I’m for Obama, but to see her through such a narrow lens is ludicrous. The writer probably doesn’t have any friends who are not part of the left, and probably lives in a narrow, circumscribed world. The ’60s and ’70s are over, in case you haven’t noticed.
Raanan Geberer
KEM PATRICK - Nice but unconvincing try. You can’t talk about Black votes and womens’ votes as if they are two different things. If you mean white women, say that. There are Black women voters, and like you said, 90% of Blacks support Obama.
So it would appear he has some womens’ votes.
Check it out — “Hillary’s Downfall” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc
It’s Hillaryous!
encouraging endorsement from the crow nation…..
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23728392-5001028,00.html
{Obama becomes ‘Barack Black Eagle’
By Jeff Mason in Montana
May 20, 2008 11:00am
US Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama became an honorary member of a native American tribe today and promised policies to help tribal people if he wins the White House in November.
The Illinois senator who is leading rival Hillary Clinton in their race for the party’s presidential nomination, joined the Crow Nation, a tribe of some 12,100 members in Montana, taking on a native name and honorary parents in a traditional ceremony.
Obama, who would be the first black US president, was “adopted” by Hartford and Mary Black Eagle and given a name which means “one who helps all people of this land”.
“I was just adopted into the tribe, so I’m still working on my pronunciation,” Senator Obama told a crowd after stumbling over some of the native names.
“I like my new name, Barack Black Eagle,” he said. “That is a good name.”}
go obama black eagle ‘08
…peace…
Hey namaste - now can you tell us how to make the candidates red and bold?
Excellent article and makes an important point. Unfortunately it was a bit pedantic, and so some readers, apparently, didn’t quite get the point.
The points made by a couple of respondents who noted that Obama was “coin-operated”, too, and that without that he would not have gotten as far as he has, are valid and troubling. The question, in my mind, is whether there is any possibility of redemption for the current system. If we have difficulty with a system that has to be pro-corporation, pro-Israeli lobby, pro military, pro war, pro a lot of stuff we don’t like, is our only option to vote Nader, or Green or not vote? Is there any possibility of operating with integrity within the current system? This is a dilemma that many of us face. Should we vote Green and “throw away our vote” or hold our noses and vote for the least offensive “coin-operated” establishment candidate?
Great article! This is a thought that I have had, but wasn’t really able to articulate - thank you.
And opeluboy and jclientelle - brilliant comments! Extremely insightful and I agree with you both wholeheartedly.
Not that Eisenstein had to disclose her hatred of Clinton, we could see it from her opening statements. But at least she did admit it … “I have not been a fan of hers. I have written critically of her for more than a decade now.” Nothing to see here, people, just another Clinton-bashing article on Common Dreams.
I do want to add that it’s just another shameful flogging of Clinton because she isn’t perfect. Everyone makes excuses for Obama, but when Clinton isn’t the everywoman, she’s flogged for it. I don’t think a man would be so harshly judged.
Where did all this crazy anti-Hillary hate come from?
Now the Clintons are supposed to be racists?
Why is it that every black leader in America thought the Clintons were friends of black Americans while they were in the White House, and they won huge majorities of black voters in 1992 and 1996, but now that Hillary Clinton is running for the nomination against Barack Obama, everything is totally different.
Now this same person who has been in public life for 25 years is supposed to be “Hitlery KKKlinton”…
Where did all this craziness come from?
Hillary IS a Republican! Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we have had since Ike. They are both centrist, corporatist Republicans, and they could both care less about the Democratic party or the progressive agenda. This should have been clear to even the most casual observer when she said that she and McSame were both qualified to be president, and Obama gives a good speech. Democratic Party rules forbid promoting the candidate of the other party over the Democratic candidate, but that is exactly what she did. She should be driven from the party before she causes any more damage, and she is determined to take her bid for the nomination all the way to the convention in August. That would be disasterous to party unity and to the chances for either Hillary or Obama to win the presidency. If I ever hear the names Clinton or Bush again in my lifetime, it will be too soon!