Dear Sisters (and I mean all you gals out there--no matter how old you are or what party you belong to, whether you work or stay home and care for your children, whether you live in the heart of our country or are flung on the farthest coast),
Even though we all know that women's votes have been important since we got the right to vote nationally in 1920, this year it's suddenly news, spin, or at least a media cycle--that women matter. Our votes matter. Didn't we matter before? Let's just say this year women have become extremely visible, and politicians in both parties and of both sexes have worked the female demographic particularly--Hillary when she finally embraced her womanhood after she discovered that by doing so she could lay claim to a sizable segment of women voters, and McCain after Hillary lost to Obama. Some of Hillary's supporters were fit to be tied and McCain wanted them to think that as their "man" he could be tied into pro-woman submission. McCain took his opportunity since these women had been encouraged to rage against Obama, who was actually the one with real credibility for being on the side of American females.
The day after Sarah Palin basked in the accolades that labeled her McCain’s Barracuda, a notable GOP representative said that she is Presidential material because he saw her eating ice cream with her children and that’s the kind of thing hockey moms like, because it prooves that she likes children and are good with them. The not-so-subtle inference is that all the hockey moms, soccer moms and football moms will vote Republican because Sarah Palin is their Christian role model. Is she? Or would other words like “hypocrisy” and “bigotry” invite a deeper scrutiny to this hockey mom's Christianity?
For example, what gives Sarah Palin the right to attack Barack Obama as though he has never done or said anything of value? Christians don’t do that. Also, it seems that the Christian Sarah Palin does not care that 600,000 people lost their jobs already this year according to today’s figures; but, you know what, Obama cares. It is also evident that Sarah Palin does not care that 290 million Americans make far less than a quarter of a million ($250,000) per year; but, you know what, Obama cares. It seems that Sarah Palin does not care that hundreds of thousands of American children go to bed hungry each night, but Obama cares. Sarah Palin does not care anything about giving billions more to her oil cronies and gouging poor hard working Americans in order to do it, but Obama cares. Apparently, Sarah Palin has a different Bible from the one the rest of us use, because the Word from God’s Son named Jesus was that “inasmuch as you didn’t do it unto the least of these ye did it not to me.” What will Sarah Palin tell Jesus when He judges the world (John 5:22)? Will this Christian mom who admits to being a member of Christ's family say “John McCain made me do it?”
I ask that all true Christians, who know the Son and are filled with His Holy Spirit, to pray earnestly that God would bless Sarah Palin and grant her repentance so that if she makes the White House she would frustrate the conspiracy of those who have planned to make us slaves to a Machiavellian oligarchy. Pray for Sarah, the Christian, to be more gracious and show the kind of class only statesmen and stateswomen have. The kind of class that allows Barack Obama to ignore the pernicious attacks, talk about the issues Americans face, and still refrain from uttering one negative word against McCain’s character.
McCain and the Republicans want power, and everyone knows that Lord Acton’s thought about absolute power and corruption was correct. Sarah Palin and John McCain want the people to forget about the Abrahamoff scandal and his Republican conspirators. They want the people to forget that Halliburton charged us more than $600 for a screw and paid some 6 million dollars to avoid court trials. They want us to forget that the Republicans blatantly lied to keep thousands of Blacks from voting in Florida with a fake felony list, but they settled out of court for a million dollars 2 years later. So it is clear that our Christian mom, Sarah Palin, is Dick Chaney’s replacement, since she was tagged as the best one to control the flow of information in the McCain White House. It will be breathtaking and painfully sad to see Sarah Palin on TV pontificating to the women who were duped to vote for her and MCCain while the soccer moms beat their heads trying to figure out what to cook for starving children.
But have no fear, the intelligent Sarah Palin, who has cornered the market on all that is good and nice, is set to follow McCain and break a few dishes in Washington. But what hypocrisy? Out of his own mouth this so-called maverick acknowledged voting with Bush and for Bush’s policies 90% of the time. Does this mean that the 10% earned him the title of “maverick?” And does this mean that he and Sarah Palin will reform Washington enough so that 290 million of us working people will get a fair share of America’s pie? If not, is it bigotry? Or is it hypocrisy? Or is it both?
Only Sarah Palin can answer that question because she is the new kid on the block with all the answers, especially since she has never been this way before. Even so, come Lord Jesus and bring the light which needs to shine in this dark place; or better yet, will all Christians who like TRUTH please stand up?
For What it’s Worth . . .
Black Issachar
The selection of John McCain's running mate is today's version of the Clarence Thomas decision. McCain took the opening that he saw and exploited it. His pick allows him to grab the attention of female undecideds and the "Clinton disenfranchised." These voters will face the same choice that African Americans faced when the Clarence Thomas nomination was rolled out. During that episode, African Americans were challenged to choose between supporting an obviously flawed candidate that symbolically represented their interest or having no African Americans on the court.
During my Senior year in college, I came down on the wrong side of this argument. I did not support my interest. I thought it was more important to have an African American on the court because it was way more important to have an African-American on the court than someone who had more moderate thoughts. The calculus of this decision dictated that the Thomas offer was a strong offer because it was a foregone conclusion that President Bush would appoint a Conservative to the court. In my mind, it was far better to have an African American Conservative than to choose a more principled fight to support a moderate nominee of any color. I rationalized that there would always be an opportunity for Thomas to come around. It was erroneous to ignore or overlook Clarence Thomas's flaws as Supreme Court Justice nominee. I took the deal, held my nose and supported Thomas because I thought that President George Bush was offering me a principled compromise.
What I feel now is that President Bush and his supporting staff manipulated my false sense of entitlement (Thurgood Marshall's seat is the African-American's seat on the court). With this false sense of entitlement, I concluded that a Conservative African-American was the best that could hope for. Given the way the Republicans had put Progressive interests to bed so dominantly during the late 80's and early 90's, I thought taking this offer was a legitimate gesture to African Americans who arguably were seeing rollbacks across the board in housing, education, health care, and civil rights. Taking this offer meant we could use the symbolism and then hope that Clarence would show a softening of his Conservative credentials under the protection of a lifetime appointment. My analytical mistake...failure to reconcile the consistent predictability of his track record. The failure to "connect the dots" was blinded by a naive and desperate notion that shelving my vital interests was less important than preserving the visible symbolism of an African American, ANY, African American being on the court.
I offer this story to the "disenfranchised/disrespected" Hillary supporters and the undecided voters considering casting their votes for the Republican's decision for Vice President. I don't believe that I was the only one holding my view on campus. In fact, campus divided along those fault lines: those who valued symbolism over their interest and those who felt that racial symbolism was far less important than balancing the court out with the selection of a moderate Supreme Court Justice. As you make your decision, be clear on what your enduring core interests are. What is the cost of compromising principle for symbol.
If I had it to do over, I would make sure that my principles and interests were better reflected in my position. One word that keeps popping into my head is blowback. However, in this instance of blowback, I am merely referring to the concept of unintended consequences. The blowback associated with compromising your principles can be crippling. That is the lesson Clarence Thomas and President George W. Bush taught me during the 2000 election. I'll never forget Clarence Thomas (the symoblic justice) casting the decisive fifth vote to overturn my principled decision to elect Al Gore in 2000. The true litmus test for measuring my contentment with the verdict: instead of feeling better that an African-American cast the decisive vote to end the vote counting in Florida and award the election to President Bush...I regurgitated at the thought that my decision to support symbolism over interests resulted in a health dose of Blowback.
Something for all of the Equal Rights, Equal Protections, Pro-Choice, Undecideds and "Disenfranchised Clinton supporters" to think about. Think about your enduring interests, match them to McCain and Palin's track record. Then ask yourself are you CITIZEN enough to digest the Blowback that you will most definitely be served as you subordinate your principles to symbolism.
Just a little Blowback for thought.
I didn't get to see Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's concession speech live. I was faced with the unfortunate task of cleaning out gutters before my state was hit with tornados and flooding. I won't even talk about the ants and beetles that were living in them.
But I did see a re-run of the concession later. I also heard a smattering of boos, the pundits pushing this HRC VP thing, the new former Hillary Supporters that were now going to vote for McCain(a man that has been accused of calling his wife Cindy the 'C' word in front of reporters back in 1992 and ran out on his first wife...after she waited for him all those years he was being held as a prisoner of war in Vietnam).
You know what they say about assuming. And my mistake was 'assuming' that the older, mostly White women that supported Hillary and are angry with Senator Obama, would not see his nomination as a slur against their womanhood, sexist or defamatory in anyway.
I had assumed they would see Senator Obama's winning the nomination of this party as a shared victory.
I use the word 'shared' for this reason: as an African American woman living in this country, I would never have had the extreme and pure pleasure of voting for this man of color in the primaries, if it had not been for a 'sister' of these same women...Senator Obama's late mother, S. Ann Dunham Soetoro. She was one of three people responsible for raising such an elegant and eloquent man of color, who not only likes himself and appreciates both cultures that he comes from,but also has the the unfailing capacity to see good in everyone...even the ones that don't deserve it(George...cough....cough...W...cough...Bush).
Senator Obama's mother was a White woman, whom if she had lived, would have been the age of many of Hillary's supporters. She gave this country such a man, along with his grandparents, the late Stanley Dunham and Madelyn Dunham. I assumed that somehow a sense of real pride would come from these women, knowing that one of their sisters played such a very large part in changing the history of this country.
Maybe between now and the convention, a few angry HRC supporters will see that. Then a few will move up to some, and some will be many, until finally these women will look at Senator Obama on that convention stage and not only see some of themselves within him, but come to the realization that they are also a very large part of why he is where he is today.
After today's speech by Hillary Clinton to her faithful supporters and the call to unite together in support of Barack Obama for President, I am grateful to be reminded that Hillary supporters and Barack supporters share a common purpose in the change we are seeking for our country, our world and our future. As a woman, I was equally grateful for her candidacy, as I know young girls in our country can actually believe that anything is possible because of her and now they are saying, "Yes, I can."
This is the time for unity: Hillary and Obama supporters together. I invite and welcome any and all Hillary supporters who are joining the campaign for Obama for President to request me as a friend here. Let's work together toward the change we seek!
