President Obama, An Unlikely Protégé of the Late Liberal Lion of the Senate

Glenn Thrush at Politico reports on the Axelrod and Edwards embrace at last night’s memorial for Ted Kennedy. I’m reminded that Axelrod is the guru who convinced Americans that a political candidate’s compelling personal narrative was more critical to his or her success than relevant qualifications backed with a substantive resume.

Who can forget Edwards standing tall in his jeans at a campaign site, talking to the folks about his life as the son of a mill worker and his impassioned pledge to resolve the rift between the ‘two Americas’ – the rich and the poor? In case you didn’t know, that was all Axelrod stuff.

Axelrod was also instrumental in the successful campaign of Deval Patrick for governor of Massachusetts and would later lift some of the rhetoric from Patrick’s speeches to pad presidential candidate Obama’s rousing orations. As Hillary Clinton pointed out in a subsequent debate: “That’s not change you can believe in, that’s Xeroxing.”

As we soon discovered, though, Obama was Axelrod’s golden boy with a personal narrative so powerful it even caused the likes of Chris Wallace and David Brooks to fall into a swoon from which they’re only now beginning to awaken. Not to mention the fact that the Kennedy clan saw a flicker of hope for reviving Camelot by passing the torch to the young senator whose sole claim to superior judgment was a speech he gave as an Illinois legislator opposing the Iraq war.

(Have I mentioned that I signed a petition at my church opposing the invasion of Iraq? Odd - I've never once thought that action qualified me to be president of the United States.)

Eight months in and the former peace candidate who gave the eulogy today at Ted Kennedy’s memorial mass has adopted most of the national security policies of George W. Bush, while our military lingers in Iraq and we pour more and more troops and treasure into the nine-year war in Afghanistan.

As Obama continues to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, it becomes increasingly difficult to see him as a protégé of Ted Kennedy who was known as the liberal lion of the U.S. Senate.

Misogyny in America and the Brutality Against Women In Afghanistan and Pakistan

I’ve repeatedly argued the ugly sexism and misogyny against Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary, unleashed by party leaders and amplified by the good old boys network in the media, followed up by the trashing of Sarah Palin in the general election, sent a message to the rest of the world that America sanctioned the oppression of women. Plus, we had the millions of readers’ comments on blogs like the Daily Kos and Huffington Post written by Barack Obama’s immature, vulgar online shock troops.


We thought we’d seen and heard it all by the time Hillary Clinton was confirmed as secretary of state. That’s when the photo of Obama’s drunken head speech writer and his inebriated buddy sexually molesting a life-size cardboard cutout of Secretary Clinton went viral as if to make sure all repressive cultures got the word.


As so-called leaders of the free world, why are we surprised to hear of the upsurge in violence against women in Afghanistan and Pakistan?


The editorial in the NY Times this morning is titled Women, Extremism, and Two Key States. Unfortunately the Times editorial board touts American values without noting the undercurrent of misogyny here at home while calling the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan to account:

There have been two recent reminders of the cost of extremism. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai signed a law that effectively sanctions marital rape. In Pakistan, a video surfaced of the Taliban in the Swat Valley publicly flogging a young woman screaming for mercy. Pakistan’s government compounded the indignity on Monday by giving in to Taliban demands and formally imposing Shariah law on the region.


Such behavior would be intolerable anywhere. But the United States is heavily invested in both countries, fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban and financing multibillion-dollar military and development programs. The cases represent an officially sanctioned brutality that violates American values and international human rights norms. They also sabotage chances of building stable healthy societies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Read more:

So Now Big Liberal Bloggers Are Whining for Their Payoff from the Dems?

Good morning, readers. Sorry I haven’t posted for a couple of days. I’ve been busy with a few freelance writing projects in addition to my usual volunteer church work. The good news is that my recently founded mindfulness meditation group prompts me to continue my daily practice, which helps me deal with stress and stay centered and focused.

My practice includes daily reading on mindfulness and on contemplative prayer. I recently finished a wonderful book titled: Thomas Merton and Thich Nhat Hanhn: Engaged Spirituality in an Age of Globalization,” by Robert King. King reminds us of Merton’s and Nhat Hanh’s social activism.

I’ll continue to resist the temptation to withdraw from the world and will stay on my toes in the political realm.

Scanning the online news sources this morning, I came across Greg Sargent’s post at Plum Line on complaints from liberal bloggers that Dems aren’t buying ads on their web sites even though said bloggers helped drive the Democratic ascendancy.

Sargent writes:

Some of the leading liberal bloggers are privately furious with the major progressive groups — and in some cases, the Democratic Party committees — for failing to spend money advertising on their sites, even as these groups constantly ask the bloggers for free assistance in driving their message.

Brings tears to your eyes doesn’t it? Especially when you read something like this:

“Most want the easy way — having a big blogger promote their agenda,” adds Markos Moulitsas, the founder of DailyKos. “Then they turn around and spend $50K for a one-page ad in the New York Times or whatever.” Moulitsas adds that officials at such groups often do nothing to engage the sites’s audiences by, say, writing posts, instead wanting the bloggers to do everything for them.

In response to Sargent’s post, readers saw a few problems. I especially appreciated this reader’s comment that recalls how the big liberal blogs became megaphones for Barack Obama during the Democratic primary while doing their utmost to destroy Hillary Clinton :

dg | April 8th, 2009 at 05:28 pm

There have got to be significant legal problems in many instances with the kind of quid pro quo that these bloggers are openly advocating.

Furthermore, how are the Democratic party committees going to spend money advertising/supporting the liberal blogs, when the blogs tend to pick preferred candidates in Democratic primaries? These blogs can’t have it both ways - throw their support behind who they deem to be *their* preferred Democrats & darlings of the blogosphere *and* expect the party and progressive organizations to throw money their way regardless of whether or not it’s a practical investment.

Markos Moulitsas and John Aravosis in particular should think about why they’re expecting support from Dem party organizations after they devoted significant resources all last year to slandering one of our Democratic presidential candidates and current Secretary of State.

Well, it is good to know up front that big liberal bloggers who supported Obama are open to bribes from the Democrats who revealed during the primary that they were not averse to corrupt practices.

Speaking Out on Behalf of a Presidential Commission on Women

I just signed a petition from WomenCount urging Congress to support legislation creating a presidential commission on women that will bring together the best thinkers from all backgrounds, sectors, and political parties to impact the future of women in our nation.

In the petition’s comment box, I wrote:

The election of Barack Obama as president in 2008 demonstrated that America has come a long way in overcoming racism. However, the shadow side of the 2008 election was this: through the abuse that Hillary Clinton endured during the Democratic primary, America told the rest of the world that the oppression of women is acceptable. It will take years for our nation to live down the shamefulness of the sexism and misogyny that surfaced in our media and among our political leaders. And who knows what horrific treatment women will continue to experience in other countries due to our example.

If you’d like to learn more about the petition and sign it yourself, go here.

Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria Coexist in the Same Heart

Photo credits: TheScroogeReport

Peter Berkowitz’ column in the WSJ, Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria Are Two Sides of the Same Coin, reminded me of a Newsweek article by Sharon Begley last February titled When It’s Head Versus Heart, The Heart Wins.

Berkowitz would agree, but with a twist. In today’s piece he argues the opposite passions toward Bush and Obama of hatred and euphoria typically coexist in the same heart, and he suggests individuals with hearts so afflicted continue to rule the day.

In constructing his argument, Berkowitz makes some good points – maybe even two or three. He writes:

(emphasis mine)

In fact, Bush hatred and Obama euphoria -- which tend to reveal more about those who feel them than the men at which they are directed -- are opposite sides of the same coin. Both represent the triumph of passion over reason. Both are intolerant of dissent. Those wallowing in Bush hatred and those reveling in Obama euphoria frequently regard those who do not share their passion as contemptible and beyond the reach of civilized discussion. Bush hatred and Obama euphoria typically coexist in the same soul. And it is disproportionately members of the intellectual and political class in whose souls they flourish.

I likely qualify as a member of the intellectual and political class noted above, however, I’ve not once succumbed to Obama euphoria, and although I’ve been almost continuously outraged by the Bush Administration’s policies since the 2000 election, I doubt my feelings toward our 43rd president ever congealed into pure hatred.

As a former member of the Democratic Party who re-registered as non-affiliated last June to protest the sexism and misogyny that Hillary Clinton endured, I can attest to the intolerance of dissent by those “reveling in Obama euphoria.” Since the early days of the Democratic primary, I’ve felt isolated from most members of my usual circle of friends and acquaintances.

My position notwithstanding, scanning the readers’ comments on the message boards of liberal online news outlets easily confirms Berkowitz’ claims that Bush hatred and Obama euphoria are two sides to the same coin.

Recently, for example, the Huffington Post provided a video of the Today Show that featured Jenna and Barbara Bush reading the letter they wrote to the Obama girls in which the Bush twins, playing the role of older sisters, offered some poignant advice to Malia and Sasha. The Today Show’s Meredith Vieira and Matt Lauer were both visibly moved.

Here’s a sampling of the hatred toward even Bush’s daughters expressed in readers’ comments from Obama supporters in response to the above video:

*Who TF Cares?

Every day it's something about these two drunks and thier letter to the Obama girls. They are starting to rival Paris and Lindsey on the annoying scale.

*All the Bushes need to just go TF away.

*"We are still relevant! We are still relevant! Look over HERE! Hello! Anyone?!? Pay attention to us!"

*Zzzzzzzz, just go away.

*They need to go away. No one cares what they have to say!

Reflecting on the 2008 presidential election, I agree with Begley’s contention in Newsweek that voters in America are more apt to vote with their hearts than their heads. And Berkowitz is right in calling the media to account for its preference in appealing to the emotions rather than intelligence:

Bush hatred and Obama euphoria are particularly toxic because they thrive in and have been promoted by the news media, whose professional responsibility, it has long been thought, is to gather the facts and analyze their significance, and by the academy, whose scholarly training, it is commonly assumed, reflects an aptitude for and dedication to systematic study and impartial inquiry.

Berokowitz’ next paragraph oversimplifies the issues while revealing a trace of his own passion, but his words should at least prompt citizens to fact check claims made by candidates a little more thoroughly before casting their ballots:

From the avalanche of vehement and ignorant attacks on Bush v. Gore and the oft-made and oft-refuted allegation that the Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq, to the remarkable lack of interest in Mr. Obama's career in Illinois politics and the determined indifference to his wrongness about the surge, wide swaths of the media and the academy have concentrated on stoking passions rather than appealing to reason.

In conclusion, Berkowitz points to a favorite conservative scapegoat: academia.

He writes:

Consequently, though Bush hatred may weaken as the 43rd president minds his business back home in Texas, and while Obama euphoria may fade as the 44th president is compelled to immerse himself in the daunting ambiguities of power, our universities will continue to educate students to believe that hatred and euphoria reflect political wisdom. Urgent though the problem is, not even the efficient and responsible spending of a $1 trillion stimulus package would begin to address it.

I disagree with Berkowitz’ claims about universities. I received my own liberal arts education (BA in English) at a state university in Minnesota in the 1970s where I learned to think critically and in the process developed a healthy skepticism for the media and politicians of every stripe.

And just for the record, I'm a progressive from this great state in the tradition of our late U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, former professor of political science at Carleton College, Northfield, Minn. Like Obama, Sen. Wellstone was once a community organizer; however, he did not feel this experience qualified him for the presidency.

Attention Obama Supporters: Experience Makes a Dramatic Comeback

During the 2008 primary, Democratic Party leadership evidently decided charisma trumped experience and proceeded to select Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton as its nominee for the presidency.

Experience made a dramatic comeback this Thursday when 57-year-old Chesley Sullenberger III made an emergency landing of a US Airways passenger plane on the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey. All 155 passengers and crew aboard Flight 1549 survived.

According to the Huffington Post, “It appeared to be the first time in 45 years that a major aircraft crash-landed in the water - and every passenger on board made it out alive.”

Capt. Sullenberger’s 40 years as a pilot made the difference and even Obama’s online supporters, who continue to swarm aimlessly over message boards at Huffington Post, are acknowledging the possibility that sometimes experience counts: especially in a crisis.

Good thing Obama will have Hillary at State to take those 3 a.m. calls.

Huffington Post Blogger Compares Rick Warren to Hillary Clinton

The other day, Huffington Post blogger David Quigg posted his thoughts on Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation. He titled his opinion-piece What Would Obama Do If Obama Was Mad At Obama About Rick Warren?

To buttress his argument, Quigg suggests that Warren’s slurs against gays are equivalent to Hillary Clinton’s criticisms of Obama during the Democratic primary:

“There are sensible people who look at Warren and see a man who belittled their marriages, lied about the perils California faced if it didn't pass Proposition 8, and -- in helping get gay marriage repealed -- thwarted their deepest aspirations for equality. Imagine that there was someone who'd belittled Obama, lied about him, and tried to thwart his most high-stakes aspirations. Would Obama invite that person to lead a prayer at the inauguration? The answer is no. Absolutely not. Because the Secretary of State doesn't lead inaugural prayers.”

Of course, Quigg fails to mention that throughout the Democratic primary, the Obama team used every despicable, underhanded weapon in its arsenal to smear both Hillary and Bill Clinton as racists even though the Clintons’ record on human rights throughout their years in public service has been impeccable.

If you go to YouTube and watch videos of the debates in the primary, you’ll notice that Obama questioned Hillary Clinton’s integrity at every opportunity.

And let me say it for the 100th time: Obama's national co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s sexist tirade against Clinton the day after her New Hampshire win remains one of the most egregious attacks on another candidate in modern history.

In yet another illogical attempt to defend Obama’s selection of Warren to pray at his inauguration, Quigg pulls a quote from The Audacity of Hope, "Megachurch pastors like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influence to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur."

So because Saddleback Church supports several worthy causes, Pastor Warren should not be accountable for his attacks on gays, Jews, and those who support reproductive rights for women?

This is the flawed reasoning writ large of the battered woman who stays with her abusive spouse because he occasionally does something nice for her.

It bears repeating: the Rick Warren controversy demonstrates that in the age of Obama, bigotry is acceptable against every group in our culture accept straight African-American males.

Candidate #5 Jesse Jackson, Jr. is No Progressive

Jesse Jackson, Jr. Photo credits: CBSlocal.com

There are those who argue that if Hillary Clinton could get over the bruises from the rigged Democratic primary and gracefully move forward to become the new administration’s secretary of state, her supporters ought to be able to fall in line.

I’m not there yet.

All it takes to reopen my wounds from the primary is the re-emergence on the national scene of the likes of Jesse Jackson, Jr.

A post the other day by John Nichols that seeks to canonize Jackson, Jr., candidate #5 in the Blagojevich scandal, set me off again:

Nichols writes:

“Jackson was as close as there was to a frontrunner in the competition for a gubernatorial appointment to the seat. He had been endorsed by the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Defender and other newspapers, as well as Progressive Democrats of America and individual activists who had come to know him as a champion in the struggle for peace and economic and social justice.”

Continuing his accolade to the Illinois congressman who served as the national co-chair of the Obama campaign during the primary, Nichols asserts:

“Since his election to the House in a 1995 special election, Jackson has compiled one of the most consistently progressive and reform-oriented records in the chamber. He has clashed not just with the Bush administration and its economic-royalist allies but with Democrats who have chosen to compromise with those interests. As such, he has cost himself politically. Jackson's stands on principle have made it harder for him to raise money and to attain the powerful positions that are apportioned to those who go along to get along.”

After every boast Nichols makes about Jackson, Jr., I have a flashback to the day after the New Hampshire primary when a grim-faced Jackson angrily lashed out at Hillary Clinton with his egregious racist and sexist charges.

Here’s a news update for John Nichols: misogyny and racism are not the hallmarks of a progressive leader.

Awaiting the Day When All American Children - Not Just Male Children - Are Free to Fulfill Their Potential

Looking out on the courtyard from my apartment window I see a dusting of snow this gray November morning, reminding me that before Barack Obama’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, the holiday season awaits.

Thanksgiving is only a couple of weeks away, and my son and daughter-in-law will be here for dinner. I’ve been stocking up: the turkey is in the freezer, and I’ve got cranberry sauce, olives, water melon pickles and other essential menu items on hand that have become traditional in our family over the years.

Thanksgiving Day is about gratitude and despite this bruising election year with its jarring realization that sexism and misogyny are alive and well in America, I feel as if I’ve grown from the experience of blogging the 2008 presidential race and for that I am grateful.

Ironically, much of what I’ve learned has been what Obama preached, especially during the early months of his campaign when rhetorically at least he was all about transcendence, transformation, and bipartisanship in a new politics for America.

The rough and tumble of the Democratic primary removed the scales from the eyes of this lifetime Democrat as I watched in dismay the DNC, the superdelegates, and the media force Hillary Clinton out of the race and hand the nomination to Obama. Sick at heart, I officially withdrew my membership from the Democratic Party last June and re-registered as non-affiliated.

Although I was never caught up in the euphoria of Obama’s far left supporters, even I was stunned when shortly after becoming the nominee, the One broke most of his campaign promises in his lunge to the center. As president-elect he continues to demonstrate that he’ll do whatever it takes to win. More evidence appears daily that Obama, the self-described harbinger of a new politics, is instead a skilled apprentice of Richard Daley - hell-bent on bringing the tactics of Chicago operatives to Washington.

Today I’ve no regrets on my decision to abandon the Democratic Party.

Rather I’ve only begun to appreciate a new reality in which all of my former partisan stereotypes have been shattered, and I’m now capable of seeing the world through the eyes of conservatives as well as liberals, recognizing that each perspective has its strengths and its weaknesses and that America needs to draw on the strengths of both in order to successfully resolve a raging international financial crisis, two wars, and a planet endangered by global warming.

At the same time, in the aftermath of a presidential race in which American politicians and the media demonstrated to the rest of the world that women in our country remain second-class citizens, leaders from both parties need to recognize that we’d better clean up our own act before preaching to other nations about their failures to uphold human rights.

In the meantime, I will look forward to the day when all children in America, not just male children, will know without a doubt that they are free to fulfill their potential.

I began this post in a spirit of gratitude and thanksgiving for lessons learned – however painful – in this election year, and I'll conclude on a similar note. In these admittedly ominous times, I’m reminded once again of the importance of beginning my day with a spiritually nurturing routine. At my kitchen table I record in my prayer journal dreams from the night and reflect on the previous day’s experiences. I then read a page or two from the writings of religious teachers such as Vietnamese Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh, who - while remaining true to his own tradition - finds kinship with the followers of Christianity. I complete my morning ritual by practicing a few minutes of meditation.

Lingering Ghosts from Obama’s Former Church: The Reverends Wright, Pfleger, and Thistlethwaite

In the aftermath of Barack Obama’s win in Tuesday’s election, ghosts of his 20-year membership at Trinity United Church of Christ have flitted across the screen. The Rev. Wright made an appearance the other day at a forum in Connecticut where he accused the media of having used him to try to sabotage Obama’s candidacy. Wright contended that statements from his inflammatory sermons were taken out of context. To refresh my memory I revisited a videotape of Wright’s sermon in which he heaped scorn on “white” Hillary Clinton, much to the glee of his congregants.

Although I’ve seen no mention of Rev. Michael Pfleger lately, Wright reminded me of Pfleger's follow-up sermon as guest preacher from the Trinity pulpit; the well-known Catholic priest also brought the house down with even more biting mockery and scorn directed at Clinton, Obama’s primary opponent in the primary.

I then turned to today’s Washington Post where I spotted an excerpt from an essay by the Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite, a long-time member of Trinity UCC who blogs for On Faith, sponsored by the Post and Newsweek. The excerpt is headlined, “Obama's Election a Step Toward Getting Back the Nation's Soul.”

Thistlethwaite writes:

“In the past years, we have sold our national soul to the devil. We sold our soul in waging preemptive war based on lies, in adopting torture as policy, and we sold our souls for greed based on creating debt and selling it. We sold our souls long ago when we made buying and selling persons of African descent legal; we still have far to go on delivering on the full promise of equality for all Americans. Gay Americans did not fare well Tuesday in ballot initiatives designed to deny them their civil rights. This is clear evidence we still have a long way to go.”

Guess what, Rev. Thistlethwaite; women did not fare so well last Tuesday either. Note that Thistlethwaite conveniently fails to mention the sexism and misogyny suffered by Sen. Hillary Clinton, the first viable female candidate for the presidency in the history of the United States. That could be because Thistlethwaite enthusiastically joined her pastor Rev. Wright and guest preacher Rev. Pfleger in their efforts to destroy Sen. Clinton.

As a seminary graduate who has served as an ordained minister, I was shocked when I read Thistlethwaite’s June 1st post at On Faith in which she used the biblical story of Esther to demonize Sen. Clinton. Keep in mind that at the time Thistlethwaite wrote this piece, she was president of Chicago Theological Seminary, affiliated with the United Church of Christ, where she continues to serve as a professor of theology.

In my opinion, Thistlethwaite clearly abused her office as seminary president with her defamatory attack on Clinton, which I’ve pasted below in its entirety.

Hillary's Biblical Role Model

At CNN”s Compassion Forum (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/07/cnn-to-air-exclusively-the-compassion-forum/) in April, both Democratic candidates for President were asked about their faith. At one point, Hillary Clinton was asked about her favorite Bible story. She said, "Ever since I was a little girl, [I have been] a great admirer of Esther ... There weren't too many models of women who had the opportunity to make a decision, to take a chance, a risk that was very courageous."

There are those who believe that this week Hillary Clinton will gracefully bow out of the Democratic race for President after the last primary, presuming Barack Obama will have locked up the majority of delegates. But I am not so sure. I have read the biblical story of Queen Esther many times and I don’t see Queen Esther as someone who would gracefully concede defeat.

Now, it is fair to say that there are not a lot of Bible stories where women get to be brave, but nevertheless, Esther is very revealing as a role model for Senator Clinton, especially since she claims to have admired Esther since she was a little girl. This high regard for Esther reveals a good deal about this candidate.

Esther becomes the Queen of King Ahasuerus after he puts away his first wife for disobedience; Esther is Jewish, a fact of which the King is apparently unaware. One of the King’s henchmen plans to exterminate the Jews, and Mordecai, who had raised Esther, prevails upon her to try to save her people. Mordecai wonders if this is not even the hand of God, that Esther should be Queen at this particular historical moment. In a verse that may be on Senator Clinton's mind today, Mordecai says, "Perhaps you have come to royal dignity for just such a time as this." (Esther 4: 14)
Esther is brave, but she is also very shrewd. Through trickery and currying favor with the King, Esther saves the Jewish people. The story shows her to be quite bloodthirsty as well. Esther makes sure that not only is the King’s henchman hanged, but his ten sons as well!

Esther is apparently also popular with another woman in politics. In the new HBO movie Recount, Laura Dern gives a stunning performance as Katherine Harris, the Florida Secretary of State who certified that the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, had defeated the Democrat, Al Gore, in the popular vote of Florida. The Florida Supreme Court overturned her ruling on appeal, though this decision was then reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the movie, the Katherine Harris character talks about her biblical role model. Again, Queen Esther.

Yes, perhaps it’s the bravery of Esther, but deception and ruthlessness are also much a part of Esther’s biblical resume.

So, this week, we may see why Queen Esther is Senator Hillary Clinton's role model and how she interprets this text. In Hillary's own Esther summary, she has “to make a decision, to take a chance, [to take] a risk that…[is] very courageous." It would be very courageous to decide to respect the rules and concede the race when Senator Obama secures the majority of delegates.

But don’t forget Esther’s cunning and ruthlessness as well. That's the question that hangs over this week like the hanging chads in Florida. What does Queen Esther mean to Hillary Clinton? Is it the same view of courage as Katherine Harris, or something different?

As I noted in my own post at Katalusis last June titled, Pundits Continue to Exorcise Their Misogynist Demons by Bashing Hillary:

“A competent powerful woman ran for president and garnered a majority of the popular vote – how threatening that must be to the likes of E. J. Dionne, Eugene Robinson, Bob Herbert, David Brooks, Mark Shields, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Keith Olbermann, et al, not to mention their codependent female allies, including Maureen Dowd, Arianna Huffington, and Susan Thistlethwaite.”

Did Hillary Clinton DESERVE Any of the Abuse She Received in the Democratic Primary?

Listening to the election coverage on network TV and PBS last night, I heard pundits marveling from time to time about Obama’s success in gaining the votes of working class whites and other former Hillary Clinton supporters in places like Scranton, Pennsylvania. To my knowledge no credit was given to Sen. Clinton for working her heart out to win over her supporters for Obama.

That’s why I was so eager this morning to read what I thought was a tribute to Sen. Clinton over at MotherJones in a post by Kevin Drum titled simply, “Hillary.”

Kevin wrote:

“I'll have more to say about Obama tomorrow, but for now I want to end the night with a word about Hillary Clinton. She ran in one of the toughest Democratic primaries ever, against one of the party's most talented politicians in recent memory, and she took a lot of abuse during that primary — some of it deserved, most of it not. But in the end, despite what must have been a bitter and searing loss, she campaigned tirelessly and wholeheartedly for the man who beat her. This is something that a lot of people doubted she'd do, and frankly, we all owe her some recognition and gratitude for her role in tonight's victory. Hillary has always been unambiguously dedicated to the Democratic Party and the cause of liberalism, and I think she proved that in the most concrete way possible over the past two months.”

I choked on the phrase, “she took a lot of abuse during that primary — some of it deserved, most of it not.”

Here's my response to Kevin's appalling statement:

Kevin,

I was stunned when I read your words about Hillary Clinton: "She ran in one of the toughest Democratic primaries ever, against one of the party's most talented politicians in recent memory, and she took a lot of ABUSE during that primary — SOME OF IT DESERVED, most of it not."

No one deserves abuse, Kevin. According to Mental Health.Net, "Abuse occurs when people mistreat or misuse other people, showing no concern for their integrity or innate worth as individuals, and in a manner that degrades their well being. Abusers frequently are interested in controlling their victims. They use abusive behaviors to manipulate their victims into submission or compliance with their will."

Hillary Clinton was certainly subjected to a tidal wave of sexist abuse throughout the Democratic primary. It's tragic that most of Obama's millions of supporters, including their allies in the media, aren't even aware of their horrifying misogyny - they don't know the difference between respectful and abusive behavior. And Kevin, I suspect from your casual statement justifying the abuse of Hillary Clinton, that you, too, are unaware of your misogynistic tendences.

I am one of those Americans unable to wholeheartedly celebrate Obama's win today knowing that he passively stood by while benefiting from the trashing of both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

Thanks in Part to Rep. Clyburn, Female Children Still Excluded from the American Dream

I have to disagree with a comment by Rep. James Clyburn on Obama’s win yesterday as reported by Sam Stein in the Huffington Post:

“Rep. James Clyburn, one of the most prominent African Americans in Congress, spoke briefly about the broad historical significance of Barack Obama's election as president.

“Saying he was moved but not too emotional, the South Carolina Democrat discussed how the most momentous change would be the ability to tell young students with conviction and certainty that they can grow up to be anything they desired.”

Thanks in part to Rep. Clyburn’s participation in the Obama camp’s smearing of both Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists during the Democratic primary, thereby contributing to Sen. Clinton’s defeat, Americans will have the ability to tell only male students hereafter that they can grow up to be anything they desire; we’ll have to wait awhile longer to offer that promise to female students.

Incidentally, prior to the 2008 presidential race, Rep. Clyburn and the Clintons had been long-time friends, and Clyburn knew very well the Clinton record on human rights issues was impeccable.

How the Power of the Vote Went Missing in the Democratic Primary

Skeptical Woman, guest posting for Lynette Long today, responds to a comment by Michelle Obama on the power of the vote.

Skeptical Woman writes:

‘“This morning, Morning Edition carried a story from North Carolina Public Radio on Michelle Obama speaking in Greensboro (9/18). She said, ‘Voting is the first real access to power we have in this country.’ If that were true, Hillary Clinton would be the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.

“Any power we voters have to elect our own nominee has been overturned by the processes and machinations of the Democratic Party on many different levels. The results of undemocratic and easily manipulated caucuses were privileged over inclusive primaries, where people actually vote. Delegates were allotted to each candidate not according to how many votes s/he received, but by some formula that included past gubernatorial election results, so that votes in some districts counted more than others. State conventions added unpledged delegates who were not elected by voters.

‘“The Democratic Party's system of unpledged ‘superdelegates,’ delegates by virtue of their status as party leaders or elected officials, clearly contravenes the idea of ‘one person one vote,’ and many of these PLEOs appear to have endorsed based on contributions to their campaigns from the presidential candidates. The Rules and Bylaws Committee ignored the actual vote in Michigan and awarded delegates to a candidate for whom not a single vote was cast, including 4 delegates earned by another candidate. The RBC and the Credentials Committee manipulated the voting process by disallowing, then allowing the participation of delegates of Michigan and Florida at times that favored the candidate who actually received fewer votes.”’

Read more.

Rising Above the Fascism of America’s Extreme Left and Extreme Right

In the heat of the Democratic primary, the netroots were on the leading edge of the extreme left. Predominantly young, white, and male these kings of the internet could be accurately described as progressive in most ways other than their ugly sexism and misogyny, which they unleashed on Hillary Clinton, and their equally cruel and abusive ageism targeting John McCain.

I soon concluded there was little difference between the extreme left and the extreme right, as they obviously mirror each other in their fascist behavior.

Charles M. Blow’s op-ed in today’s NY Times concurs with my conclusion. He begins:

“Can you hear that? I can. It’s the sound of political action committees and party extremists sharpening their wedge issues and setting the timers on their bombshells. The fall’s battle is looming. It’s going to get ugly.”

Here’s the picture, Blow explains:

“Once again they’ll cast the opposition as binary caricatures to rally their bases, swing the independents and capture the defectors.

“The left will be reduced to fist-bumping blacks and intellectual elites with gun aversions and gay agendas. An amoral, tale-tucking lot that coddles criminals, raises taxes and has gone Chicken Little over global warming.

“The right will be lambasted as ultra-conservative cretins who want to conflate the Constitution and the Bible, are pro-life before birth and pro-death after trial and blindly follow war-hungry fear-mongers who obsess over “terrorists” like a Tootsie Roll commercial.

“And, never the twain shall meet. Left or right? That narrow view is just wrong. Americans are much more complex. Sadly, battle cries drown out nuance in campaigns.”

Blow guides us to a deeper understanding of the major issues our country is facing:

“So, in these relative calm days of summer, with Barack Obama on his way back from a rock-star tour of the other side of the pond and John McCain shadowboxing the media stateside, let’s pause and recognize that Americans overwhelmingly agree on many of the big issues and are changing their minds on others. It’s just that those shifting views, when taken as a whole, don’t neatly line up with either party’s platform.

“Here are a few examples, according to Gallup polls taken over the last eight years:

“• Six in 10 Americans believe that conservation should be emphasized to solve the energy problem, 7 in 10 favor the death penalty for murder and don’t want to ban the sale of handguns, and 8 in 10 believe in God but also believe that abortion should be legal, at least under certain circumstances.

“• Nearly half now believe that we are unlikely to win the war in Iraq and that the war has made us less safe from terrorism.

“• An increasing number of people believe that religion as a whole is losing its influence on American life and an increasing number want it to have less influence.

“• While more bemoan the worsening state of moral values in the country, we are increasingly shifting our opinion on what is morally acceptable. Now most believe that getting divorced, engaging in premarital sex and having babies outside of marriage are morally acceptable. Nearly half also say that gay relationships are morally acceptable.”

In effect, as Blow explains, the middle ground is the higher ground to which we are called:

“Remember this when the attack ads start up and the divisive rhetoric starts to bore into our brains. Remember that campaigns are not just about the people on the placards but about parties and power, and that the wizards behind the curtains specialize in amplifying differences that stoke our fears. Remember, and resist.”

I suggest we do more than resist. It is especially important for Americans to stand up and let our political leaders and the media know that discrimination and hate mongering against any group of people - whether it’s based on religion, race, gender, age, sexual preference, or national origin – will no longer be tolerated.

P.S.
It’s past time for members of the netroots to grow up.

Destroying Hillary Clinton Part II

McCluskey and McEwan have now posted Destroying Hillary Clinton Part II at the Guardian, concluding their documentation of the sexism and misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton throughout the Democratic primary.

(To read Destroying Hillary Clinton Part I and my comments, go here. VB)

Destroying Hillary Clinton Part II begins:

“It was an indication of how thoroughly the left co-opted the use of the GOP and media-created scandals, to smear Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries, that the Republicans weren't even mentioning them much anymore, content to let the Left do its dirty work. There was little reason for GOP operatives to get their hands dirty reviving the villainous First Lady Macbeth caricature, when many liberals were happy to do it for them.”

(Incidentally, by following the Democratic primary closely I was often nauseated by the garbage on left-wing sites such as the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos. That’s about the time I decided the extreme left and the extreme right were mirror images, and it would be the better part of wisdom to ignore the rantings of both. VB)

To read more of Part II, go here.

How Obama Can Win Clinton Supporters

Sometimes a thoughtful reader’s comment offers more helpful suggestions than can be found elsewhere in online news coverage.

Following Michael Falcone’s post at the Caucus (NY Times) this morning, Saturday, June 28, "Canary in the Coalmine" offers concrete suggestions to Obama for winning over Clinton supporters.

So how hard could it be, Barack, to actually do something about the sexism that Hillary Clinton endured during the Democratic primary?

Here’s the Canary’s comment verbatim:

I would think that earning the support of Sen Clinton’s supporters would be first on Mr Obama’s agenda. Maybe doing something (an issues agenda, speaking about, admitting, recognizing?) about the prevalent sexism expressed by the candidate and exploited by his campaign might help.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,181838 6,00.html

has a new poll that shines light on reality….there wasn’t much of a bump after Sen Clinton’s suspending her campaign. With 46% undecided (Sen Clinton’s supporters and probably a good smathering of hard-line evangelicals disenchanted with McCain, unlikely Obama voters) and only roughly half of them are even open to changing their minds about any candidate, or presumedly voting at all.

Want my vote? Earn my vote.

Support your Democratic House and Senate candidates, the DCCC and DSCC. A veto-proof majority in Congress will ensure a government for ALL Americans.

So, Clinton Supporters: What Do We Want, and What Must We Get Over?

Photo credit: AFP

Kate Phillips has a post at the Caucus (NY Times) this evening, titled Obama’s ‘Get Over It’ Moment.

Phillips begins:

“The Republicans are having fun with a simple phrase Senator Barack Obama apparently, reportedly, purportedly, used during a meeting with members of the Congressional Black Caucus last week.

‘“Women, loyal to Senator Hillary Clinton, will ‘get over it,’ he reportedly told C.B.C. lawmakers, once they learn what Senator John McCain’s positions are on women’s issues.”’

Phillips follows up by citing a post by Jake Tapper and Kate Snow at ABC News, and she concludes with several questions that those of us who continue to support Hillary Clinton might want to consider:

“But isn’t it also plausible that it doesn’t help the so-called “healing” of the Democratic Party to use phrases like they’ll “get over it” with women who aren’t the type to run out and buy the latest Michelle Obama dress off the rack? What if they just stay home, or at work?

“Or don’t vote?

‘“We’d guess the most important question for this election cycle, now, given Senator Clinton’s failure to clinch the nomination, is, not as she said, ‘What Does Hillary Want?’ but again, to borrow from the old feminist book title, ‘What Do Women Want?’

That’s a question both Republicans and Democrats are asking, with that predominant voting bloc — albeit not monolithic — of women voters, mothers and single women, elderly and young, out there, watching and listening. And hearing.

And wondering. What is it that they have to get over?”’

So, Katalusis readers, what do you think women want and what is it that we have to get over?

Your comments are always appreciated!

Breaking News: Americans Becoming Dumber About Politics

I’m still mulling over the final days of the Democratic primary, said by some to have ended on May 26 after the votes from North Carolina and Indiana were tallied, and the recently deceased Tim Russert, now rumored by his colleagues to be under investigation for sainthood, proclaimed Obama the Democratic nominee.

Immediately after Russert’s proclamation, pundits from around the country answered the call to once again demand that the nation’s first female presidential candidate withdraw from the race. Mark this well: Hillary Clinton was the first presidential candidate in American history to be asked by our shameless media to drop out.

With the travesty of the Democratic primary in mind, no Clinton supporter should be surprised to learn that decade by decade, Americans have become dumber about politics.

In today’s Boston Globe, Rick Shenkman writes:

“THE THOUGHT occurs to almost everybody, I would suppose, that politics today is conducted at a lower level than it used to be. Not many voted against William Howard Taft because he was fat or Abraham Lincoln because he was thin. One can't imagine Franklin Roosevelt being judged by how badly he bowled or how convincingly he knocked back a tumble of scotch. Indeed, studies show that the speeches presidents gave a half-century ago were pitched at the 12th-grade level - five grades above the level of speeches given by presidents over the last generation.

“Which brings up a paradox. Decade by decade Americans are getting smarter and smarter, and decade by decade our politics is getting dumber and dumber. How can we explain it?

“In 1940 six in 10 Americans hadn't gone past the eighth grade. Today, most Americans have attended college. Partly as a result of their added schooling, Americans today are more tolerant of dissent and less racist. But surveys show that increased schooling doesn't correspond to a higher aptitude for civics. To put this bluntly: Americans today are no better informed about politics than their grade-school educated grandparents. With respect to some subjects they are less well-informed.”

Shenkman’s article gets even scarier:

“Like Americans in the 1940s, Americans today barely understand basic facts about our government. Only two in 10 know we have 100 US senators. Only four in 10 know we have three branches of government and can name them. Only a third know that Congress has the power to declare war.

“They are no better informed about the identity of the people running the government. Only four in 10 could identify William Rehnquist, the long-serving chief justice of the US Supreme Court, more than two decades into his term. Only two in 10 can name the current secretary of defense, Robert Gates. A Harvard study by Thomas Patterson found that Americans today are less able to articulate the differences between the two major parties than voters in the 1950s.”

Having targeted television news coverage as a major culprit in the dumbing down of American voters, Shenkman concludes by stating the obvious:

“If politicians were angels, we wouldn't need smart voters. But they aren't. One of the most pressing issues of our times, though few talk about it, is therefore the acknowledgement of the limits of contemporary voters and strategies to make them smarter.”

To read Shenkman’s article in its entirety, go here.

P.S.

Gotta love the title of Rick Shenkman’s recently published book: "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter."

Gloria Steinem’s Critique of the Impact of Sexism in the Democratic Primary

Gloria Steinem’s critique of the sexism endured by Hillary Clinton throughout the Democratic primary and the misogyny in American culture at large is impossible to refute; I’ll continue to pass, however, on throwing my support to Barack Obama. Watch Steinem’s interview on CNN here.

The Tipping Point for One Former Democrat

It’s my habit every morning to scan online news sources in both the MSM and blogosphere before posting here at Katalusis. On this particular morning, I was still pondering the most effective way to let the DNC know that the sexism and misogyny demonstrated by party leaders and their good old boy allies in the media throughout the Democratic primary will no longer cut it.

Hillary Clinton’s gracious concession speech last Saturday did not persuade me to let bygones be bygones and throw my support to Barack Obama, a candidate I’ve considered grossly unqualified for the presidency from the get-go.

Yes, I’m one of those lifelong Democrats who has been sorely tempted to abandon my political home off and on for several months now. My outrage deepened at every juncture in the campaign when party members and media pundits ganged up on Clinton in their efforts to force her out of the race before millions of people were given the opportunity to vote.

While making my usual rounds across the Internet, I checked out the Washington Post minutes ago and despite the taste of bile in my mouth, I clicked on Eugene Robinson’s column. Gene, you remember, only recently assumed the role of God by suggesting in one of his more offensive diatribes against Clinton that she was in danger of losing her very soul.

In today’s column, Mr. Robinson waxes euphoric over Clinton’s concession speech:

“It's no secret that I've found plenty of fault with the way Clinton, her staff and her husband ran their campaign. But I can't find a thing wrong with the way she ended it, delivering a gracious and stirring address beneath the soaring, faux-marble columns of the National Building Museum. She chose one of Washington's grandest interior spaces for her valedictory, and her words lived up to the setting.”

Readers’ comments by Clinton supporters (shown below in italics) expressed my sentiments in response to Gene’s words far better than I could have:

1.“During the campaign it seemed to be considered great sport among MSM commentators like Robinson to trash and denigrate Senator Clinton. Like lining up to hit a pinata or something. She struggled on a playing field tilted against her. Your praise of her now rings very hollow. Save yourself the trouble. We won't be voting for your good friend Mr. Obama.”

2.“Mr. Robinson- You have truly inspired me. I will write in Hillary's name come November!”

3.“And so we complete the pundit merry-go-round. I've seen this movie before with Al Gore. First, the pundits spend months trashing, mocking, ridiculing, sneering at, making up stuff about the candidate, doing everything they can to rip the candidacy apart.

Then, when they've gotten their way, they write this kind of milquetoast, smug, self-satisfied mea culpa, patting themselves on the back for their own grace.

It's disgusting and disingenuous in the extreme. Robinson has spent the last year writing the vilest, nastiest things about Hillary Clinton, most of them based either on his own mind-reading of the candidate or stuff that turned out to be untrue.

It would be a fascinating case study-- if the world didn't hang in the balance --to note the parallels between how the media treated Gore and Clinton.

The only site I've seen that nails it is dailyhowler.com. Read it and weep, literally.”

Nearly choking on bile, I left the Washington Post to visit Politico.com where I noticed this headline: “Will Clinton take the blame if Obama falls?” Here’s a sample of the drivel in Ben Adler’s piece:

‘“If the Democrats don’t win the White House back this fall there will be a hard core contingent of young Obama supporters who will be extremely disappointed,’ said Alexandra Acker, executive director of the Young Democrats of America. ‘They will be looking for someone to blame and some may look to the long primary.’

“Democratic strategists, elected officials and political analysts interviewed by Politico agreed that any debate that surfaces over her culpability will be colored by how hard Clinton works to heal the rift between now and Election Day.”

Talk about attempted blackmail. Stooping to new all-time lows, so-called Democratic strategists are actually trying to force Hillary Clinton to go all out to make sure that her less qualified opponent in the primary is elected president of the United States.

Adler’s article was the tipping point for me. I immediately went to http://www.democrats.org/; I needed to re-register anyway as I had changed addresses since the last election. For the first time in my adult life, I did not register as a Democrat. Instead I typed “no party” in the appropriate space, printed out the form, signed it, and mailed it to the Minnesota Secretary of State. Thus, I officially became an independent voter.

Once the deed was done, I returned to my computer to finish reading the “news” and get this post up. That’s when I stumbled on Bonnie Erbe’s opinion piece at USNews, titled “Obama and the Democrats Owe Hillary Clinton and Her Supporters a Formal Apology for the Campaign's Sexism.”

Erbe writes:

“The Democratic National Committee either doesn't get it or refuses to admit it. Nothing short of a lengthy, detailed mea culpa by the DNC and by Obama himself, directed to Clinton supporters for the sexist name-calling and personal, nasty characterizations Clinton was alone forced to endure, will do. Even that may not persuade these voters to consider supporting the party this fall. The DNC, Democratic Party leaders in Congress, and Obama should have been at her side, calling her treatment by the media (and even by some Obama supporters) unacceptable.

“According to most polls, something in the range of 20 to 25 percent of her 18 million supporters say they'll vote for Senator McCain in November. That's 4.5 million votes—too many to take for granted. Yet taking them for granted is just what the party and Obama are doing. When CNN's Candy Crowley asked Obama how he would appeal to disaffected Clinton voters, he missed the mark entirely, giving a standard set of policy proposals.”

Thinking it over, I decided I might consider returning to the Democratic fold the day I receive that mea culpa from the DNC and Obama, as described above by Erbe.

In the meantime, I think I’ll just relax and enjoy my newfound status as an independent voter, unbeholden to the sexist political hacks from either party.

I'll keep posting, though. Stay tuned, Katalusis readers, as we continue our sometimes dismaying journey through America's deeply flawed political process. Someday perhaps our voices will be heard, and women of all races, nationalities, and ethnic origin will thereafter be treated with dignity and respect.

I'm not willing to settle for less.