BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE The Assassination CartoonI’m all for freedom of speech, but there are limits. Along with freedom comes responsibility, and the New York Post demonstrated the complete absence of responsibility with the publication of their cartoon depicting the assassination of the President of the United States.While freedom of speech and expression are indeed a cornerstone of American democracy, it is against the law to shout “fire” in a crowded theater–and with good reason. It is necessary for a free society to protect itself from those who don’t have the common sense to recognize that what they consider funny, or a practical joke, can get people killed. Thus, even in a free society it is sometimes necessary to jail a free citizen for behavior that amounts to criminal stupidity. While I’m not an attorney, I think they call it criminal negligence.
The Bill Ayers story continues because the Republicans obviously do not want to focus on their association with the causes of the failing economy. The McCain-Palin campaign has a TV ad that states that Sen. Obama lied about his association with Bill Ayers. Gov. Palin goes so far to say that Ayers and Obama are "pals."
FactCheck has a different take:
In a TV ad, McCain says Obama "lied" about his association with William Ayers, a former bomb-setting, anti-war radical from the 1960s and '70s. We find McCain's claim to be groundless. New details have recently come to light, but nothing Obama said previously has been shown to be false. In a Web ad and in repeated attacks from the stump, McCain describes the two as associates, and Palin claims they "pal around" together. But so far as is known, their relationship was never very close. An Obama spokesman says they last saw each other in a chance encounter on the street more than a year ago.Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former "terrorist," he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education.
In a TV ad, McCain says Obama "lied" about his association with William Ayers, a former bomb-setting, anti-war radical from the 1960s and '70s. We find McCain's claim to be groundless. New details have recently come to light, but nothing Obama said previously has been shown to be false. In a Web ad and in repeated attacks from the stump, McCain describes the two as associates, and Palin claims they "pal around" together. But so far as is known, their relationship was never very close. An Obama spokesman says they last saw each other in a chance encounter on the street more than a year ago.
Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former "terrorist," he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education.
Our democracy grants Democrats and Republicans the right to disagree on fundamental issues such as abortion and gay rights, but the McCain-Palin claims have crossed the line.
It's absolutely remarkable that John McCain, a sitting US Senator basically says that Barack Obama another sitting US Senator is at best a terrorist sympathizer or at worst actually a terrorist himself. Where is the outrage from the rest of Congress, especially the Senate? And what about the other 49 governors? How can they be silent about fellow Gov. Palin’s claims that Sen. Obama “pals” around with a terrorist?The character assassination tactic (it’s not a strategy) that Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are using is clearly coded to incite racial bias against Sen. Obama. Chris Matthews of MSNBC has repeatedly said on Hardball that the Republicans are trying to paint Obama as “mysterious” and that they are “de-Americanizing” him. One radio host (WMAL 630 in Washington, DC) went so far to state in reply to CNN’s Don Lemon’s question about the “Keating 5” that Keating was only a banker. Yeah some banker! Ask all those people who lost their money in the Saving and Loan crisis what they thought of Charles Keating. From their standpoint he was an economic terrorist.Sadly, this tactic could provoke someone to take a potshot at Sen. Obama. If God forbid he was killed, think what would happen next. The 1968 riots would probably look like a bunch of block parties in comparison. Some right-wing Republicans have tried to camouflage the implicit hate speech that McCain and Palin are using by saying that if matters were reversed there would be no compunction about the Democrats using it against McCain. The problem is that they conveniently ignore the centuries of absolutely vile discrimination that African-Americans suffered. No thinking person would think it’s an apples to oranges comparison.Keep in mind that the Atwater-Rove philosophy that winning at any cost justifies the means used is what the market manipulators used to get us into the current financial mess.John McCain once said that he would “rather lose the election than lose the war.” By his actions is he now saying that he would rather win the election and lose the country? So much for “Country First.”
What will be the effects of Sarah Palin's Big Lie techniques--claiming the Democrats wave "the white flag of surrender" when the country is at war, and that Barack Obama "pals around" with terrorists?
Incitement to violence on the part of gun-toting crazies?
Assassination Chatter and the End of LegitimacyDavid Bromwich - May 27 '08
..We have seen a return this year to the politics of delegitimation by the extreme Republican right. Yet what has been most surprising is the complicity, and then the open participation in that process by the Clinton campaign. Race was always going to be an element in this year's election. But the comparison of the front runner Barack Obama to the marginal candidate Jesse Jackson on the pretext that both had won South Carolina was a shocker when people heard it come out of the mouth of Bill Clinton. Again, the talk, by Hillary Clinton and her operatives after Ohio, of "the commander in chief test" which (it was said) she and John McCain had "passed" but Obama mysteriously could not pass, was a second stroke of the same kind. There was no scientific or political content to the statement. Its significance was gestural. It was an effort to delegitimate Obama, and its truth could only be shown by its success or failure. Hillary Clinton's recent careless-careful mention of the assassination of Robert Kennedy, in answer to a question about why she would stay in the Democratic race when all the numbers are against her, raised the tactics of delegitimation to a pitch as weird as anything the Clintons can have seen in the years 1997-98.. ..An unmeasurable but well-recorded condition for the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the campaign of delegitimation that preceded that terrible event..
..We have seen a return this year to the politics of delegitimation by the extreme Republican right. Yet what has been most surprising is the complicity, and then the open participation in that process by the Clinton campaign. Race was always going to be an element in this year's election. But the comparison of the front runner Barack Obama to the marginal candidate Jesse Jackson on the pretext that both had won South Carolina was a shocker when people heard it come out of the mouth of Bill Clinton. Again, the talk, by Hillary Clinton and her operatives after Ohio, of "the commander in chief test" which (it was said) she and John McCain had "passed" but Obama mysteriously could not pass, was a second stroke of the same kind. There was no scientific or political content to the statement. Its significance was gestural. It was an effort to delegitimate Obama, and its truth could only be shown by its success or failure.
Hillary Clinton's recent careless-careful mention of the assassination of Robert Kennedy, in answer to a question about why she would stay in the Democratic race when all the numbers are against her, raised the tactics of delegitimation to a pitch as weird as anything the Clintons can have seen in the years 1997-98..
..An unmeasurable but well-recorded condition for the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the campaign of delegitimation that preceded that terrible event..
Here's an article about talking with Iran - really interesting.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121193151568724469.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Here is a article about the dangers of tangoing with the Clinton's. As far fetched as it seems I have had suspicions about the Clinton ever since Ron Brown. Put nothing past them - NOTHING!
http://www.chillary.net/
This, from Eugene Robinson’s column, “Hillary’s Grim Scenario”, in today’s Washington Post
For anyone who missed it, Clinton was pleading her cause before the editorial board of the Sioux Falls, S.D., Argus Leader on Friday. Rejecting calls to drop out because her chances of winning have become so slight, she said the following: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it." The point isn't whether you take Clinton at her word that she didn't actually mean to suggest that someone -- guess who? -- might be assassinated. The point is: Whoa, where did that come from?
He later states:
It could be that any presidential campaign requires a measure of blind faith. But there's a difference between having faith in a dream and being lost in a delusion. The former suggests inner strength; the latter, an inner meltdown.
He concludes with
Clinton campaigns as if she knows she will leave some Democrats with bad feelings. That's the Clinton way: Ask forgiveness, not permission. But every day, as more superdelegates trickle to Obama's side, it becomes a surer bet that she will not win. She and her family enjoy good health and fabulous wealth. They'll be fine -- unless, while losing this race for the nomination, Hillary Clinton also loses her soul.
Instead of using Robinson’s approach, let’s analyze her statement from a more logical point of view and see where this gets us.
Keith Olbermann goes off on Hillary Clinton!http://youtube.com/watch?v=J8CsQyr6vlc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=q9VEeZ1CL50
Barack Obama’s message to Hillary… “It’s Over Now… Sorry.”http://youtube.com/watch?v=b7--cBpWnJs
So, Hillary Clinton sealed the deal yesterday. She will NOT be Barack Obama's Vice-Presidential candidate. In referencing the assassination of Robert Kennedy during the 1968 Presidential election as one of the reasons she continues to stay in the race, Hillary Clinton implied yesterday that just in case something bad happens to Barack Obama over the next few months, she wants to be there to save the day, in essence, to save the Democratic Party from defeat. But not only are these comments offensive and inappropriate, but they confirm the doubts and fears that many have had concerning the Clintons’ overwhelming desire to win this election. As they’ve proven time and time again throughout the last several months, Bill and Hillary Clinton are willing to do whatever it takes to get back to the White House. And while many will stop at simply calling Clinton’s recent comments a political gaffe, I think it shows intention, and should serve as the defining reason why Barack Obama should not give her the option of running on the same ticket. Think about it. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are this election’s John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Just like Obama and Clinton, Kennedy and Johnson were two chief political rivals in the Democratic Party, both with broad bases and widespread support. And like Barack and Hillary, JFK and LBJ didn’t particularly like each other. Kennedy, having won the Democratic primary, decided, for the good of the party, that he would offer Johnson the Vice-Presidential spot on the Democratic ticket, believing Johnson would decline because of his contempt for Kennedy and his unwillingness to be #2 on the ticket. But to much surprise, Johnson accepted, and Kennedy ended up dead four years later, leaving the Presidency to Johnson. Now, I’m not claiming that Johnson was responsible for Kennedy’s assassination, but there are many who believe just that. Some believe that Johnson’s desire to be President coupled with his frustration with the lack of responsibility that Kennedy gave him drove him to take Kennedy out. We have no way of proving this to be true of false. It may just be some little silly, crazy rumor that someone made up to explain Kennedy’s controversial death. But the similarities between then and now are eerie. The country is hungry for change, just as it was in the ‘60s, and the prospect of an attempt to take out the leaders of this movement of change, i.e. John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Dr. King, should be taken very seriously. Add to that the recent controversy surrounding the Secret Service and the allegedly racism taking place within its ranks, i.e. the hanging of a noose in a Secret Service training room, the internal emails and memos containing racial epithets, and the investigation of racially discriminatory hiring process within the Secret Service, the agency assigned to protect our top officials, and it creates an environment too tense to ignore. Like the allegations surrounding Lyndon B. Johnson after Kennedy’s assassination, in Hillary Clinton, we see a “win-at-all-costs” type of attitude that should surely raise some questions and fears about her intentions in this campaign. And in making comments like the ones she made yesterday, she is certainly not helping to quell those questions and silent those fears. Now, I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton intends to plot an assassination attempt against Barack Obama. But many have speculated, even before these recent comments, that she intends to do whatever she can to destroy his candidacy. So why should he choose her as his running mate when she makes statements like this? Sure, she apologized and said she regretted the remarks, but shouldn’t we now be concerned about her true intentions to unite the party? Despite what she wants you to believe, Hillary Clinton is a very smart, well-educated, well-polished politician. She knows what she’s doing. Her comments yesterday were intentional and deliberate, designed to intimidate Barack Obama, to strike fear in his heart, and doubts in his mind about whether running for President is really worth it, whether fighting for change is really worth losing his life. But what Hillary doesn’t understand is that, as Christians, we don’t fear death. Yea, though we walk through the shadow of the valley of death, we shall fear no evil. The Lord is our light and salvation. Of whom shall we be afraid? (Psalm 23:1). So, Hillary Clinton, if you want to continue to make the case that you should remain in this contest, go right ahead! But just know, in the process, you’re messing up any shot you have of getting back to the White House. Peace and God bless,J.W. P.S. Continue to pray for Barack as he moves to becoming the first black leader of the free world!http://youtube.com/watch?v=0tD4l1NYmXg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nTgXEGujm58
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
IS HILLARY ENGAGED IN SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING?
Beneath the spin has never been more meaningful than it has become during this political season, because it’s beginning to look like Hillary Clinton has taken it’s meaning to a new and very insidious level. After her comment regarding Robert Kennedy’s assassination, I began to consider all the "gaffes" that both she and Bill have been involved in during this campaign, and I’ve found strong evidence that points to the possibility that Hillary has been engaged in the practice of subliminal messaging throughout this campaign. If this is indeed the case, it makes her latest misstatement much more serious than many of us would like to believe.
Subliminal messaging involves sending messages to the subconscious mind that are not picked up on a conscious level. This technique is often used in advertising–sometimes overtly, but at other times very covertly. An example of the overt use of subliminal messaging in advertising is to have a beautiful woman caressing a new car that’s being advertised for sale. Having the woman there caressing the car sends a subliminal message to the subconscious of perspective male buyers that if they buy this car, it will draw beautiful women to them. Another example of overt subliminal advertising is in the use of Michael Jordan to advertise tennis shoes. It sends the message that if you buy these tennis shoes, it will help you to play basketball like Michael Jordan. Neither is necessarily true, but the beauty of subliminal messaging is since the message goes directly to the subconscious, it circumvents the scrutiny of logical thought.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," -Hillary Clinton
It’s easy to give Senator Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt regarding her confused reference to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Easy, but dangerously naïve. Easy because conscience demands resilience against the inevitability of human nature to err. Dangerously naïve because malice aforethought is hardly dismissable given the vitriolic energy of this primary campaign. The easy way out leads us to the remaining contests of the primary season and on to the serious work in advance of November. To forget is not yet to forgive, however, because this is May. The comments still reverberate with a lasting turbulence. In the event of the unmentionable, the Senator’s comments could conceivably form the basis of an FBI investigation.
This is a nation of mental diversity. The mix, in general is a good idea for the world, but it includes psychological profiles capable of acting out of suggestion, serving ends conceived in delusion. Even conclusions drawn in minds more sane and intellectually sound could act upon the motivational force nested within such irresponsible observations. More overt results could truly render her remarks far less benign than the excuses of fatigue and misspeak seek to characterize them. If such explanations are to be held as sufficient to clean up the mess, then we have to consider what kind of administration she would run given her vulnerability to the pressures of the job.
Giving Mrs. Clinton the benefit of the doubt could be the least deserving action called for by her statements. It was a dangerous and threatening pander to the worst of potential strategies designed to win the nomination for her. An official reprimand would serve only to raise the profile of the comments and impede their inevitable fade from the sound bytes of media intrusion into the public mentality. It could be best for the continued safety of Senator Obama to let the matter disappear. The Obama campaign wisely used the term, "unfortunate" and moved on. For now, this is the best course of action.
RWH 5-26-08
Finally, the supers will bring this contest to a close -YAHOO!
As I think about what Hillary stated in her piece "Clinton: Why I Continue to Run", I am reminded about some of the earlier challenges we had with Hillary. Now Hillary is all for the people but do you remember Nevada....take a look!
UPDATE: Here's a statement from campaign spokesman Bill Burton...
We're glad that the Nevada court upheld the Nevada Democratic Party's caucus plan which encourages voter participation. While the Clinton camp clearly believed the voices of workers should be silenced in service of their perceived political interest, they enjoyed a twenty five-point lead two months ago and have much of the party establishment in their camp. So, despite their inherent advantages we are pleased this should be a close and competitive contest Saturday.
In Hillary's piece this weekend she stated:
Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable. ...I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for - and everything I am fighting for in this election.
Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable.
...I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for - and everything I am fighting for in this election.
Wished Hillary read this blog (and no disrespect intended) but I would love to know how that feels. Earlier she was asked did she think Obama was an elitist and responded
No, I do not think he is elistist; but his words were elistist.
So, here's one for you Hillary
No, I do not think you would assassinate, but your word sound like you wouldn't mind
Now it's come full circle. So it's important to watch what you give because eventually it must return!
Finally, today I read that the Clinton campaign accused Obama campaign of stirring up the issue. If Hillary's hypocrisy was still surprising to me I would discuss this point...but I think we all understand the point here. Oh, by the way, Hillary, I don't believe you. Obama has consistently given you an opportunity ro redeem yourself; but, you said what you wanted to say to achieve and to produce precisely the results you did. The point you claimed to desire is fundamentally unsupported by your argument.
KC
When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn't teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn't interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem, "I'd rather you shot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you'll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird." That was the only time I ever hear Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it. "Your father's right," she said. "Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat up people's gardens, don't nest in corncribs, they don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mocking bird."
Mike Huckabee Jokes about Gun Aimed at Obama
Hillary Clinton References Robert Kennedy June '68 Assassination as Justification to Stay in Race
Fox News Contributor Liz Trotta Makes On-Air Joke that both Obama and Osama Should be Killed
We the people must decide whether this kind of political discourse is acceptable. Does 21st century America condone debates about killing black politicians?
I find the words so difficult to come out right now---I'm in shock, I want to cry, I want to scream and most importantly I want to shout to the mountain tops that WE as Obama supporters will not stand for this sort of vulgar news being reported from FOX news or their employees.
I am spending all night and all day for however long it takes---to get this video out to every state in the union. It's enough that Hillary gives a lame excuse for her latest gaffe (I don't buy it!!) and hopefully by Monday the MSM will be all over it like flies on poop!
Well this latest one from FOX NEWS and their news correspondent Liz Trotta has got to be the 'icing on the cake.'
Please help me to get the video out to the entire world. Let them know what type of "unfair" and "unbalanced" program FOX NEWS really is. Liz Trotta is now branded as a piranha and should be dealt with in a severe manner that shows the entire country that WE will NOT tolerate this sort of behavior.
This is a "Fierce Urgency of NOW!!" Thank you!!
You can find the story located in the link below:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/25/15389/8576/115/522617
A few word from our NM GA 4 OBAMA 08 MEMBER, Consultant:
What amazes me is this keeps getting reported and talked about by people who actually have jobs!
Pairing competitors from the same party for the general election has happened before, but this would be a train wreck before they left the station. Besides, beyond the hostility between the two and the zero gain in "balancing" the ticket, bringing Clinton on the team would put Obama in the position of having to defend and explain EVERYTHING the Clintons have done (and said).
Do you remember Rev. Wright (and he wasn't even part of the campaign)? Obama would have to explain (over and over) why he chose Hillary, who the donors are to the Clinton Library, the upcoming trial in Los Angeles against the Clintons for campaign fundraising violations, pardons at the end of the Clinton presidency, Monica Lewinsky, can he control Bill, why does Hillary keep talking about assassination, and on and on. And you know it would happen.
Last point-Clinton's high negatives. Are they just going to disappear?
Clinton as VP-bad idea!
My Thoughts:
I think Hillary has proven she does not want that ticket to happen. I believe if she has her eye on a powerful seat in politics, She should consider a seat in the Courts or anything else where her "slip" would not be showing every other day. To bring the Assassination "slip" into the conversation was about as quiet as bringing Rev Wright, an advid Clinton Supporter before & after the campaign began, into the conversation with pictures, live, and in-person. Why would she utter such words after clearly stating her supporters like their guns and a majority do not have college degrees? I'm trying to understand the logic Hillary is using to fuel her campaign. I don't understand. Do You?
Although I am an Obama supporter, I do not think that HRC intended anything malicious by her remark--apart from maybe wrapping herself in the RFK mantle. It should be remembered that news reports discussing RFK's California win after the win but before his assassination were all commenting on how Humphrey nonetheless held a commanding lead based on non-primary state delegates. One pundit after another wrote off RFK's chances of winning and RFK himself indicated that he needed McCarthy's supporters to switch to him in order for him to have any chance. Given the bad blood between the campaigns, that was unlikely. So HRC may have been referring to the fact that, even in June, RFK was continuing to soldier on against impossible odds.
That said, HRC's comment points up, once again, her unfitness to lead. Contrary to her repeated dismissals, words DO matter. They may not matter as much when you are on the Senate floor with 2 CSPAN viewers as your audience, but they matter a whole lot when you are CIC and the leader of the Free World. When a candidate for president threatens to "obliterate" Iran, the public and leaders in this country and around the world question the candidate's fitness to lead. When a candidate "misspeaks" about being under fire and then turns it into a punch line on Leno, veterans and service members question her fitness to serve as CIC, take that 3 AM call, and send them into harm's way. When a candidate raises the specter of assassination, even without malicious intent, in a race where her opponent is soon likely to become the first African American nominee for president of a major political party, it is time for all of us to question her fitness to lead. Being "presidential" is more about how you act than how you look. BHO has acted presidential consistently in this campaign. HRC has not.
As we remember Senator Kennedy in our prayers, both for his terrible health problem and for the upcoming 40th anniversary of his brother's tragic death, Senator Clinton should consider his example and realize that she can serve her country very honorably in the Senate. Once the primaries are over, she should work with the Obama campaign and the DNC in good faith to resolve the FL and MI issues and bow out gracefully.
Both of my parents have passed. I am States away from their resting place, but I will be sending out prayers and have personal conversations with both. My father was a Veteran....Korea. I have his War Bonds tucked away in a safe place...along with his photos of those with whom he served. I wonder what both of my parents would think of the current state of political affairs. I remember vividly the grief of my mother (she would be 83) surrounding the JKF - MLK - RFK assassinations. I grew up in a wonderful rural Iowa home and blessed by my parents with a strong foundation of Christian values. My father was a farmer. My mother was a teacher. My mother didn't always agree with the course I pursued in life - we would argue about "why she was doing everything for dad....jump when he said jump." She was from a different era and didn't understand why I wanted to "burn my bra" and identify with Steinem and "those feminists."
As I reflect upon this with fond memories, the Friday before Memorial Day, Hillary Rodham Clinton makes an unforgivable statement. She not so subtlely references waiting in the wings for Obama to be assassinated. This has been on my mind, as she continues to move the bar, play with the math and wants to be VP if she can't have the whole enchilada. And I should be shocked that she said it on camera - but I am not shocked. I am not shocked that she has issued no apology to the people of this nation, or other nations, that she has made no apology to Sen. Obama. She has no remorse. This is the clearest example of where we have come politically in 40 years. Full circle.
I got my degree in Women's Studies. I wrote a research paper in the course of that degree based on my theory that "feminism" was analogous to all other "isms." But not in the sense you may think. I likened feminists to racists, classists, etc. It was a well written paper. I got a D- but was offered an opportunity to rewrite it for a better grade. I had spent 3 weeks on that first paper. The second one was haphazardly written overnight and - because it said what it was "supposed" to say, I received a B. It probably would have been an A - had not the first paper been submitted. So with my degree in Women's Studies in hand - and my own set of ideas about feminism in mind, I graduated with honors. But I would not "cling to" the feminist bible. I would not identify with the hatred of men - of all the whining and complaints of what had been done to "us women." I had chosen to be force fed the anger of decades and sent out without any tools to do make real change. But HARK: I saw the bigger picture. It was plain and simple - I made a wiser choice to become a humanitarian with a degree that would MARK me as I stepped into my future - but I would choose my battles wisely and eradicate all forms of ISMS in my work as an advocate for change. And with this knowledge, I better understood my mother.
I have supported Sen. Obama from day one. I have had a difficult time with "feminists" that would call me a traitor - they are feminISTS....like racist, classist and sexist. That "ism" is inherent in the feminist movement as a whole. White middle class women marginalizing all others, including women that aren't the "right" race or class.... who aren't WHITE enough. It isn't as though they don't address the marginalized women - they do - in well written articles - but ACTION is always based on the REAL feminist agenda. Thus Hillary Rodham Clinton - unafraid to race-bait - use class, do "anything" to get elected. I am not an Obama supporter because I am afraid to see a woman in the White House - as President. That day will come. But it will come when we have the RIGHT woman to rally behind. HRC is not that woman...her divisiveness, her words and her actions have made that clear. I have HOPE for the future. Sen. Obama offers that HOPE to UNIFY ALL - women are a part of ALL!
I pray that the feminists who want to see a Woman President in their lifetime will begin to look inside themselves and then look beyond their agenda to see clearly the bigger picture. I pray too, that they get beyond their notion that WOMEN have got to do it before BLACK MEN! That they can see that their actions are racist! To see the bigger picture is to be human - not categorized, marginalized or divided. I understand that feminists want it so much - and have worked hard throughout their whole lives - they want to see the OUTCOME of their efforts on a grand scale. But there is a refusal to see that Hillary Rodham Clinton - if elected - would undermine all of their years od work. Because it would be a long long long time before there was ever a second President of the USA that "happens to be a woman." I pray that they begin to see this and think not of themselves - but of their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.
