Political Crossfire Forums

[Bull]

The Washington Post

Quote:
By Benjamin Wallace-Wells
Sunday, November 12, 2006; Page B01

The 2006 elections were for the technocrats and the operatives, pitting the Democratic tacticians against the Karl Rove machine. But the next election is already beginning to look quite different: 2008 may be one for the novelists.

Viewers of the election returns late on Tuesday, after all, got an early start on the iconography of the next presidential race. The cable networks' cameras cut between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, thanking her supporters for an overwhelming victory in the New York Senate race, her husband standing pointedly behind, and a smiling Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, giving cautious, professorial analysis to the television viewers. Nobody noted the significance, but it stared us all in the face: The two presumed leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are a woman and an African American.

Their candidacies -- coming after elections resulting in the presumed first female speaker of the House and the second black governor since Reconstruction -- suggest that the next elections may play in ways that are more cultural and symbolic than tactical and political. Are Americans ready to put a black man or a woman in charge of the country? And does the hefty symbolism that Obama and Clinton would bring help one of them more than the other -- in other words, is the country more racist or more sexist?

Democracies are awkward like this. Despite incessant polling, we really get only one moment every two years, at best, to measure how Americans feel about things, and these elections must stand as imperfect proxies for a mess of subjects: what we think about religion, whether we like being included in the international conversation, whether Northeast bluebloods would tolerate a Texan as their leader.

But when it comes to race and sex, this seems a slightly more legitimate game: The question that remains for black Americans and women isn't whether prejudice has diffused to the point that they can participate in the United States, it's whether they can legitimately hope to lead it.

Today, they may have reasons to be optimistic. Poll numbers for Clinton and Obama are among the strongest of any presidential hopefuls. It now seems nearly as common for political leaders in television shows and movies to be women or racial minorities as white men. Recent polls have found that the percentages of Americans who say they would not vote for a hypothetical black or female presidential candidate, long formidable, have dwindled into the single digits. And last Tuesday's elections put House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on the brink of becoming speaker and Democrat Deval Patrick, who is black, in the Massachusetts governorship.

But as the two would-be presidential candidates grapple with how to manage the legacies of their own identities, Obama seems engaged with a more problematic political feeling. Even if race is more socially crippling than gender -- even if it was less likely that Obama would make it to Harvard Law than that Clinton would make it to Yale Law -- the symbolism of race can also be awfully empowering to individual politicians who learn to harness it. Most Americans want to believe that the culture has moved past its racial problems, and that the symbol of that progress would be widely cheered. Compared with Clinton, says George Lakoff, a linguistics professor and Democratic message guru, "Obama clearly has it better."

Whatever racism remains in this country, it coexists with a galloping desire to put that old race stuff behind us, to have a national Goodbye to All That moment. The most recent such occasion was Obama's much-publicized tour to promote his book of policy prescriptions, "The Audacity of Hope." The Denver Post called him a "rock star," the Seattle Times found him "electrifying," and even the Deseret News in Salt Lake City described the "raucous greeting" he received in Utah. This rapture wasn't only because of what Obama has said; most of his audiences had not heard much from him or read much of his book. It was because he symbolizes the possibility of a more modern America.

Clinton had a best-selling autobiography and a media-heavy book tour, too, but the coverage had less to do with the symbolism she carried as a woman than with her history as Bill Clinton's wife, and with the way she was positioning herself for the future. There are many reasons for this difference, but one critical one has to do with the legacies of oppression that each inherits. While many Americans have a sincere sense of sentimentality and nostalgia for what Clinton may consider outdated gender roles, a much smaller number have that kind of feeling for racial segregation. There is the sense that, by electing a female president, the nation would be meeting a standard set by other liberal democracies; the election of a black man, by contrast, would be a particularly American achievement, an affirmation of American ideals and a celebration of American circumstances.

Obama's mixed-race heritage is rarely far from his political conversation. He writes of having a Kansan mother "as white as milk," and a Kenyan father "as black as pitch." He has used his race explicitly while speaking in Africa and urging politicians there to move beyond tribalism, and implicitly while speaking in southern Illinois to punctuate an address about the challenges of globalization. In his speeches, Obama uses his simple presence as an establishment national political figure who is black to serve as a metaphorical exclamation point -- a visual assurance that the country can work for everyone.

This is how he used it in his most famous speech, at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: "I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents' dreams live on in my two precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on Earth, is my story even possible."

When Clinton gives a speech, her gender is just as evident, but she doesn't give it nearly the same kind of rhetorical prominence. She is as likely to talk about handing out buttons for Republican Barry Goldwater as a child as about what her presence as a political woman means for the country. Her most famous speech during the current political cycle dealt with a topic close to her own identity: In January 2005, she gave a widely praised talk to a group of New York state family-planning providers, telling them that the pro-choice movement had failed to acknowledge the great emotional cost involved in having an abortion. For Clinton, a hero to many women who support abortion rights, this was regarded as a particularly brave stance.

But in a speech about such a personal topic, what is most noteworthy is its impersonality. Clinton didn't mention her own experiences as a wife or a mother, but seized upon a trip she took to Romania as first lady, where she learned about the policies of the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu, who tried to force every woman to have five children for the glory of the state, subjecting them to monthly roundups and reproductive exams attended by the secret police. It's a striking story, but what's even more striking is the way Clinton introduced it: "My own views of family planning and reproductive rights are heavily influenced by my travels as first lady," she said. This is not only the kind of thing that Sen. Joe Biden might say, but it also sounds suspicious: Were Clinton's views on these issues not fully formed before she began traveling as first lady?

The contrast is vivid in the two senators' autobiographies. Obama's, "Dreams From My Father," is an attempt to explain his evolving political awareness as a direct articulation of his roots. Here is the way Clinton begins her life story, "Living History": "I wasn't born a first lady or a senator. I wasn't born a Democrat. I wasn't born a lawyer or an advocate for women's rights and human rights. I wasn't born a wife or a mother."

Part of this difference is simple personal style. And there's also the matter of learned political behavior: Clinton has spent a decade and a half being beaten up, often personally and viciously, for the intersection of her gender and her politics, and it would make sense if she were trying to disconnect the two. But there is something else here.

The political progress of women and African Americans has long been intertwined; the suffragette movement gained huge momentum from the complaint that black men had received the right to vote before women of any race. But when it comes to modern political leadership, women have become more present. In January, the Senate will have 16 women and one African American, while eight women and one African American will be governors. Geraldine Ferraro was a vice presidential running mate more than 20 years ago, and still no black politician has reached that plateau.

Gender, meanwhile, may have become part of the political wallpaper. When Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. and Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele ran for Senate this fall, their race was mentioned in virtually every story; when Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Claire McCaskill ran, their gender was barely noted. The ferocity of national feelings about race can still be threatening; this election cycle saw the widely condemned race-baiting ads run against Ford in Tennessee. But if the nation feels its racial sins more clearly, it also has a more urgent desire to get past them. "I think gender has become more normal in leadership," said Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project, a New York nonprofit that works to develop female leaders with the goal of having a woman in the White House. "Race is a much more troubling, sadder, unresolved part of our history than the issue of gender, so it certainly looms larger."

Of course, the civil rights and women's rights movements of the 1960s have left vastly different legacies. No political figure would dare deny the saintliness of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.; Betty Friedan's name is a political dirty word. Repression of blacks was the stuff of massive state-leveraged cruelty -- the police dogs and fire hoses -- while repression of women in this country was made of quieter stuff: bras, aprons and constitutional amendments.

Obama is frequently called post-racial, the suggestion being that because he has an exotic background, Americans are looking at a newer model of a human. The metaphor works for Obama politically, because it contains the idea that his youth lets him create a more modern and inclusive brand of politics than the rhetoric of civil rights-era politicians such as Jesse Jackson. Clinton's Jesse Jacksons are Ferraro, who bombed, and Pelosi, who is still hanging around.

This is the ultimate imbalance between the would-be presidential contenders, and it's both rough on Clinton and helps explain why Obama's public presentation is so much more closely linked to his identity: There's a model for being post-racial, but there's no easy way to be post-gender.

Fredrick Harris, a political scientist at the University of Rochester, sees a post-gender future out there, and its name is Condoleezza Rice. The secretary of state, he notes, "is unmarried, has no children, is completely dedicated to her job, for pleasure she plays the piano and works and that's about it."

Clinton has made different choices, but they have their limits. Politically, she has done everything that Obama has done: She has become a serious policy professional, moved toward the center and renounced the excesses of 1960s-style identity politics. And yet these moves are received as the tacks of a smart politician. For Obama, they are received as the arrival of his race.

This is a DAMN good article!!! I think I'm going to save it too. It's probably by far the best article I've read so far on Obama or Clinton (and that's saying a lot seeing as how there are a lot of good Obama articles out there). The article tries to explain how race is more apparent in Obama, than Hillary's sex is "apparent." Not to say she's manly, the article isn't a smear at her. I can't really explain it...just read the article. But I will say this, regardless of Obama's lack of experience on the world stage...if he decides to run...he's an instant heavyweight in the 2008 election. And I think many conservatives on this board underestimate his crossover appeal. The article basically tries to answer the question in the headline. Is America more racist or more sexist?

I know a lot of men probably don't like Hillary because of her aggressive, independent demeanor. And they may feel she's stepping out of her "role." But this is kinda outdated seeing as how there are many strong and independent women in America today. I don't think sexism is as apparent as racism is though...or maybe I need a female on this board to elaborate it for me. Maybe because I'm a black male, I'd notice racism (or perceived racism) before I'd notice sexism.

I don't want this to turn into a mud-slinging thread like my last one. I want to know honestly...when thinking of Hillary and potentially Obama, who would it be harder for? Hillary has thick skin and has been called every name in the book, and seen it all. But seeing as how Barack is new to the world stage, the "freshman" senator...do you think he could take the racism that you KNOW is coming his way? I'm not asking who you would vote for, this is not a poll, it's really not even partisan.

[ontheyslay]

The South deffinately is. But who knows, in a couple of years the North might get behind one of them.

[lucidnightmare]

I don't care what color they are. I would vote for black or female conservatives. There are plenty of both.

[ubikk]

We still work by the electoral college. Hillary or Barack simply need to carry the blue states in 2004, plus one more, most likely either Ohio or Florida. I think that's a lot easier than people try to make it out to be. The anti-hillary crowd wants to convince everyone that Hillary is unelectable so the democrats won't run her. If they really thought she would lose so badly, they'd be sitting there saying stuff like:

"Yeah, Hillary, nice lady, you SHOULD run her for President..., yeah, Clinton/Obama --that's the ticket!"

[Revenant]

Most people I know don't like Hillary because she is an opportunistic beotch who changes her views based upon what is popular. Like censorship? So does Hillary when it comes to placating soccer moms! Like low taxes? Hillary is a moderate, she feels tax cuts benefit everybody! Like entitlement programs? Hillary feels we need to strengthen the welfare programs of the nation. Basically, like McCain, has no real base other than what is deemed "popular".

I don't want her in the oval office. There's a difference between Hillary and Pelosi. One is honest where she stands (Pelosi). Same with McCain and someone like Buchanan. I know where Buchanan stands. Basically, my hypothesis is Hillary is a liberal who is afraid to show her true colors, just as McCain is conservative but refuses to show his true colors.

[Bull]

ubikk wrote: We still work by the electoral college. Hillary or Barack simply need to carry the blue states in 2004, plus one more, most likely either Ohio or Florida. I think that's a lot easier than people try to make it out to be. The anti-hillary crowd wants to convince everyone that Hillary is unelectable so the democrats won't run her. If they really thought she would lose so badly, they'd be sitting there saying stuff like:

"Yeah, Hillary, nice lady, you SHOULD run her for President..., yeah, Clinton/Obama --that's the ticket!"

I agree. People act as if you NEED many Southern states to win and that's not true. Honestly all you need are a couple swing states and you're in. Look at 2000, Gore won the popular vote...but lost the electoral (even though the election itself was shady as hell).

[Snake]

Americas too racist/sexist for them?I thought they both got elected, silly me....

[Bull]

Kim Jong Ill wrote: Americas too racist/sexist for them?I thought they both got elected, silly me....

To Congress yea...but I think we can both agree that Senator and President are two VASTLY different jobs.

[sublime]

No. Just too sensible and too nice for the charisma-challenged Hillary. And don't know Obama well enough; but he's a Democrat so are you implying that Democrats may be too racist?

Probably. They play the race card too much to be otherwise. They paint Blacks as "needy" all the time; hardly a respectful way to treat them.

Ask Black writer/Historian Shelby Steele:

"The mechanism by which racial preferences engineer “inclusion” is a tolerance of mediocrity in minorities—allowing mediocrity to win for them what only excellence wins for others."

and Thomas Sowell:

"Before the election of 1860, abolitionists said it would make no difference whether Lincoln or a Democrat was elected. But millions of people were freed because that prediction was wrong."

Liberals have been wrong about Blacks for a long, long time.

[flamboyant]

Quote: when thinking of Hillary and potentially Obama, who would it be harder for?

I think the country is definately ready for a black president or a female president . . . heck, Condi Rice could even put in a strong showing as a black female presidential candidate. And when Rudy or McCain keep the White House in Republican control, I don't think you should assume that it's because America's a racist country or a sexist country. Some of that exists, certainly, but if both the people who say they'd never vote for a woman and the people who say they'd never vote for a black are only showing in single-digit numbers when asked the question, it's certainly not an insurmountable margin. You compare that to (I'm guessing here) the 20% or 30% who will never in their lives vote outside their own party, and that number's pretty small.

Take Geraldine Ferraro, for example. I don't think her loss had anything to do with her being a woman, I just think America thought her and Mondale were far too liberal to lead the country.

I think Obama very much could win an election in the future if he continues making all the right moves. 2008 might be a little early for him, it was only 5 years ago that he came on the national scene, so he might be considered too much the political neophyte for this election, but I think the country is well within the possibility of electing him sometime in the future.

As far as Clinton goes, again, I think it's about so many other things than her sex. First there's the whole fatigue factor of having Bush, Clinton, Bush . . . now another Clinton back in? There's that fatigue factor there where I think people just might want someone other than a Bush or a Clinton for the next president, but she also has some pretty high negatives. I saw a poll where 52% of people said they would never vote for Hillary, and the article kind of glosses over the fact that she trails by 10 to 20 points in a hypothetical against Rudy or McCain, so that's a pretty big hurdle to overcome.

Same thing with Hillary, though - I could see her becoming president maybe in a future election, but unless a lot of things change pretty radically, for 2008 I'm just not seeing it.

Pretty good article, a bit slanted - they mention the Ford ads from this election, but not the oreos being thrown at Steele, they seem to gloss over Hillary's current position by saying "poll numbers for Clinton and Obama are among the strongest of any presidential hopefuls" when she trails both Rudy and McCain pretty handily (I haven't seem numbers on Obama against them however) all and all a pretty good read though.

[cool_chick]

No, I don't think so.

Something that just occurred to me though...even Pakistan had a woman leader :lol:

[flamboyant]

sublime wrote: No. Just too sensible and too nice for the charisma-challenged Hillary. And don't know Obama well enough; but he's a Democrat so are you implying that Democrats may be too racist?

Probably. They play the race card too much to be otherwise. They paint Blacks as "needy" all the time; hardly a respectful way to treat them.

Ask Black writer/Historian Shelby Steele:

"The mechanism by which racial preferences engineer “inclusion” is a tolerance of mediocrity in minorities—allowing mediocrity to win for them what only excellence wins for others."

and Thomas Sowell:

"Before the election of 1860, abolitionists said it would make no difference whether Lincoln or a Democrat was elected. But millions of people were freed because that prediction was wrong."

Liberals have been wrong about Blacks for a long, long time.

What can you say though about the Democratic party, who founded the KKK as their terrorist wing in response to anger over the abolition of slavery.

And in a lot of ways, they still support slavery in their support of the welfare state. I look at the pictures of Katrina devistated New Orleans for instance and you really have to ask yourself, how well did 60 years of the welfare state and Democrat control on a state and local level work out for these people. The Dems were completely in control, they were basically unchallenged. How well did that workout for New Orleans and Louisana?

[flamboyant]

cool_chick wrote: No, I don't think so.

Something that just occurred to me though...even Pakistan had a woman leader :lol:

You know what's ironic is that some women (and I'm not saying you, but some women) seem far more strongly opposed to a woman in the White House than even men who you might consider sexists. I don't know, maybe there's some "cattyness" streak that runs through women, because they do hold an edge on the population numbers - if they ever were able to band together and unite they'd rule the world.

[Federali]

Osama Barack is a Criminal Marxist.


He's part of the systemic cronyism and corruption that exist in Illinois politic. He's more likely to end up in jail than become a President.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0611020249nov02,1,2091341.column

His wife is also corrupt:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/money_and_influence/index.html

As for Hillary, she's already sold her soul to Satan.

[DavidXV]

But how do you know he is really black or that she is really a woman?

[Patriarch]

Nah I think People just don't like liberalism in general.

[Longhorn]

The real issue is that Obama is unproven and Clinton is a weak women. Why would I vote for a women that tolerated her husband cheating on her? If she isn't strong enough to leave a cheating pervert, then she isn't strong enough to handle the Presidency.

[Anti-Federalist]

An annoying article. Spewy idiocy for fawning morons.

And for you to say someone is sexist because they don't like Hillary is just plain poor.

Hillary is an incredibly dangerous individual. Almost every person (friend or foe) that has interacted with Hillary is dead. This is dozens of people!

http://cbn2.tripod.com/dlink.html

Of six Clinton campaign managers, all are dead of mysterious causes (except one named James Riady who is on the run).

Not all of these victims were old either. Mary Mahoney (Whitehouse intern before Monica Lewinsky) was murdered (shot in the face) at the age of 25.

http://cbn2.tripod.com/d3.shtml

You don't have to believe that any of the deaths were murders. But gee, that sure is a lot of coincidental dying.

"The 2006 elections were for the technocrats and the operatives, pitting the Democratic tacticians against the Karl Rove machine."

"But as the two would-be presidential candidates grapple with how to manage the legacies of their own identities"

Memorize these phrases (and the entire piece if you want to). They are excellent examples of how NOT to write.

Now get a life.

[cool_chick]

flamboyant wrote: cool_chick wrote: No, I don't think so.

Something that just occurred to me though...even Pakistan had a woman leader :lol:

You know what's ironic is that some women (and I'm not saying you, but some women) seem far more strongly opposed to a woman in the White House than even men who you might consider sexists. I don't know, maybe there's some "cattyness" streak that runs through women, because they do hold an edge on the population numbers - if they ever were able to band together and unite they'd rule the world.

Really?

Seriously, I never met one....but then I never really talked about that either. I'm gonna start asking around.

If a woman thinks that way, that's pretty pathetic. My own personal standpoint, I honestly don't care what sex, race, etc., etc., I just want someone good.

Yes, if true, that is catty. And yes, they say women generally make better leaders...has to do with the way the brain works. Read that somewhere.....

[Vexillum]

flamboyant wrote: I think the country is definately ready for a black president or a female president . . . heck, Condi Rice

a Condi Rice presidency would assure that no black or woman would make it to the Whitehouse for another generation. :lol: