Obama's Grandmother

Yes, the story is old, and yes, the MSM and Obamasphere have declared that he did not throw his grandmother under the bus, but Uppity's April 8, 2008 post reminded me that I've not forgotten what he said and that, contrary to his many apologists, it bothers me more every time I hear it.

If this had been an off-the-cuff remark during a conversation about racism with friends or colleagues, I could excuse it. We all draw from past experiences and, quite often, exaggerate or massage the facts to bolster the position we are taking.

But the speech in which Obama outed his white grandmother as an unconscious bigot has been widely touted as the most important and brilliant speech in modern political history. We are told that Obama wrote it all himself, spent hours writing it, even stayed up all night. So we must assume that he chose this anecdote (a bit revised from the story in his sort of, semi-accurate memoir) with care.

To make the point that he could not abandon his preacher, he chose to tarnish the image of the woman who raised him. Later, in justifying or explaining the anecdote, he described her as a "typical white woman".

He had to have known that the speech and his comments would be widely broadcast and discussed. He should have known, or guessed, that it might be used by Republicans in ads against him. But he, nevertheless, chose to use his grandmother to help him out from under the political mess he had gotten himself into.

It seems to me to be fair to ask if this is how a grandson expresses his affection, gratitutde, or love for his grandmother? What kind of person would tell this story, true or not, in the most public of forums about his grandmother? What kind of grandson would explain away his grandmother as a "typical white woman"? I'm not a psychologist but I can't help but feel that maybe Obama doesn't exactly love his grandmother, that maybe he knew it would hurt her to be used this way and that's exactly what he wanted to happen.

At the very least, it suggests an enormous distance between him and his grandmother, and a lack of compunction about using her faults to enhance his reputation.

I know I'm not expressing this very well. All I know is that each time something causes me to remember his statements about his grandmother, I sense deep inside me that something is very, very wrong.

Obama, Super Delegates and Affirmative Action*

I've thought a long time about whether or not to post this. I am a Hillary supporter. I do not believe that I am a racist. But I could be deluding myself.

Nevertheless, here goes.

The uncommitted Super Delegates have a real problem that is not being addressed amidst all the arguments about pledged delegates, caucuses, primaries, Florida, Michigan, etc. It is very simple. They will decide who the Democratic nominee will be. Their votes will be public. If Hillary wins because of Super Delegate votes, there will be an unholy chorus of objections from the MSM and the liberal blogosphere. The Supers will inevitably be accused of being racists and/or being bought off or threatened by the Clintons (although Obama's contributions to the campaigns of Supers far exceed that of Hillary Clinton). Hillary's campaign against McCain would be blighted.

But what if the Supers vote for Obama? Will they be accused of having being bought off? Of being sexist or misogynists? No. Hillary's supporters will be furious, but we lack the media megaphone that Obama has. Our objections will be treated as a footnote, as irrelvant. We will be patted on the head and told to "get over it". Obama's campaign will not be dogged by charges of illegitimacy because he owns the MSM and the A-List blogosphere.

So, it won't come down to whether the Supers believe Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Hillary. Some of them may vote for him believing in their hearts that he will lose but concluding that losing the GE will be less painful than being individually targeted as racists. (Can you imagine the pressure if, in the worst of all possible worlds, it comes down to the vote of a single Super Delegate?)

Perhaps this is the elephant in the closet, the reason so many pundits are so sure that Obama will be the Democratic nominee. They know the Democratic leadership (Obama, Pelosi, Brazile, etc.) have made this calculation, too. They have two choices: nominate a woman and be accused of racism, and quite possibly lose the African American vote. Or nominate Obama and pray that he can beat McCain. Losing would hurt, but they would not bear the responsiblity.

I'm pretty sure Obama has made this calculation, too. In short, Barack Obama may turn out to be our first Affirmative Action Democratic candidate for President - and, possibly, our first Affirmative Action President.

*UPDATE: I'm using the Conservative definition here: hiring an unqualified or under-qualified person solely because of that person's gender, ethnicity, race or religion.

Who does the DNC represent?

I'm really confused about these primaries which started in January and are scheduled to end in June.

Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and Nancy Pelosi and the media and the Kossacks & family all insist that the campaign has to stop today for the good of the party.

Now, let's take the media first. They wanted it to be over after the Iowa caucuses. Why? What were they planning to talk about for the 8 months until the conventon? As I've posted before, the networks have practically stopped covering the conventions because they are just free advertising for the parties. This year, a convention might be worth paying attention to. But the media aren't interested. Weird.

But back to the DNC. So they made some rules about when primaries could be held, and the primary purpose of the rules, as far as I can tell, was to keep Iowa and New Hampshire at the head of the pack. Florida and Michigan, primarily because of Republicans, moved their primaries up in defiance of "The Rules".

Ignoring the question about the rules and credentials, etc., what Florida and Michigan were trying to do was to be relevant because, as current DNC commentary goes, the states at the back end of the primary schedule are not supposed to count.

Democrats across the country (and Republicans, too, if McCain had not emerged as the leader) are thus in a no-win situation. If they move their primary dates up front, their votes won't be counted because of "The Rules". If they leave them at the back of the schedule, their votes won't count either: because the nominee will have already been chosen (McCain) or because the Party wants the winner to be selected before the primary season is halfway finished.

This is a classic Catch-22 of course. So it makes me wonder just whom the DNC represents, because it doesn't seem to represent or much care about the preferences of ordinary voting Democrats. Why then even bother with an expensive primary season? The DNC should simply get together in January of the election year and choose the candidate, just like back in those old smoke-filled room days. It is cruel and unusual punishment to, with one hand, give Democrats across the country the right to vote for the candidate of their choice and, with the other hand, take it away because it is divisive.

One last thought: if it were Obama vs. Edwards, would there be all this yak about how Edwards should get out for the good of the Party?

Obama's Whiners: Neglecting the Obvious

Amidst all the hand-wringing by Obama's supporters about Hillary's staying in the campaign and hurting the Democratic Party, one sometimes forgets to notice the obvious.

With 10 states left to vote, Obama has the chance to increase his lead in both delegates and votes and, thus, make his claim to the nomination even stronger.

In short, this is a major opportunity for Obama to clinch the nomination. So why all the storm und drang?

The answer's kind of obvious, isn't it?

The Insidious Nature of Misogyny and Sexism

The The Wall Street Journal's Mar. 29, 2008 Page One has an article on the reaction of women to Hillary's campaign that is reasonably fair and accurate but also disturbing, because some of the men and women interviewed have bought into sexism and misogyny without even realizing it.

Listen to Professor McCollester:

"Charles McCollester, a professor of industrial relations at Indiana University of Pennsylvania who works with union members, says he is ready for a woman president, "just not this woman." He supports Sen. Obama. "Several of my really close female friends feel this is unleashing some kind of antiwoman sentiment. But I don't see it. We love women. I just never cared much for Hillary. She has set out to become as male as all the rest of the boys."

Look at his justification: "We love women. I just never cared much for Hillary. She has set out to become as male as all the rest of the boys". Can one imagine anything similar being said about a man? What does it mean to "set out to become as male"? And if being a man is good, why is this bad? If this isn't sexist, if this isn't misogynist, than what is?

So, OK, McCollester, is a man. What about Amanda Moniz, a PH.D. candidate?

"It isn't easy being a woman in academia," says Amanda Moniz, a 36-year-old Ph.D. candidate in history at the University of Michigan. "I want a woman candidate who is strong, but also feminine, and who doesn't feel she has to be tougher than men to succeed," she says.
"Although Hillary has achieved a lot on her own, she wouldn't be where she was if not for her husband -- and that isn't an inspiring lesson."

First, of course, she echoes McCollester's sentiment: "... a woman candidate who is strong, but also feminine, and who doesn't feel she has to be tougher than men to succeed." What on earth does she mean? What is Hillary supposed to do? Speak softy? Wear flowery dresses? Cry? (Oh, no, she can't do that. Only men are allowed to cry in public these days - which I suppose is one kind of progress.)

And I wonder how many people who voted for Bush 43 worried about the fact that he wouldn't have gotten where he is if not for his father? The U.S. political system has from day one had political "families". Check the Wikipedia if you want to see how prevalent this is. What about family businesses? Since when have we insisted that only self-made individuals can make a name for themselves in the arts (the Fondas, Redgraves) business or government?

Then there's Alexa Steinberg:

Alexa Steinberg, 25, a graduate student at the University of New Hampshire, says she recognizes "that women only make 78 cents for every male dollar, and there are still hurdles for women that I'll face." She says she thinks it's only a matter of time before she'll be supporting a female candidate for U.S. president -- but it won't be Sen. Clinton. "Politically and personally, she's trying to take on the male persona, and isn't a woman in the way I want a woman candidate to be," she says.

Ms. Steinberg, who supports Sen. Obama, says she's far more drawn to Michele Obama as a role model. "Michele has a career and even earns more than Barack, and she can knock him for not picking up his socks or doing the laundry," she explains. "But she has a sense of humor, too. She has a blend of many things, a balance that I can see and appreciate."

Do you see a pattern here? It's McCollester again. "Politically and personally, she's trying to take on the male persona, and isn't a woman in the way I want a woman candidate to be". Does Steinberg think that Obama is trying to be too Black, or too White, or too multicultural? No. What does it mean to take on the "male persona"? Competence? Strength? A willingness to defend herself? I have no idea. These characterizations go back to the days of suffragettes and the ERA. Women who opposed getting the vote or an Equal Rights Amendment used similar arguments against the Suffragettes. These women absorb male prejudices and don't even realize they are doing it.

Ms. Steinberg also, of course, doesn't seem to know much about Hillary - who has been a lawyer all her life, was the chief breadwinner while Bill was running for office and Governor of Arkansas, who has been a mother and raised a daughter to be proud of, who has demonstrated a fine sense of humor on the campaign trail. I don't know if she has ever complained about Bill's laundry habits in public, but good heavens, what kind of criterion is that for the Presidency.

Experience vs. Judgment: The First McCain-Obama Debate

My latest nightmare, the first debate between McCain and Obama:

Obama will bring out that old line he's used against Hillary that judgment outweighs experience when the latter's result is Iraq.

McCain, with a twinkle in his eye and that half-smile, will look at the audience and say "He made one statement about the Iraq war being dumb back in 2004 and thinks that qualifies him to be President. What is the younger generation coming to?"

That exchange will be run repeatedly by all the news networks that have been praising Obama as the Next Coming and, all of a sudden, all those pundits will say "gee, you know, McCain is right".

I realize that many Obama supporters assume that Americans, who now overwhelmingly oppose the war in Iraq, will not support a man, McCain, who endorses the war. What they do not realize is that Americans do still see the world as a dangerous place and, when push comes to shove, they will prefer a "straight-talking" President with lots of experience to an arrogant young man in a very big hurry.

Why does Pelosi support Obama?

No, I don't know Pelosi and I've never heard her directly endorse Obama, but anybody who has been following this campaign understands what she means when she makes a comment about the primaries.

I have been trying to understand Obama's enduring appeal. I can see being infatuated with him: the rhetorical skill, those high-flown sentiments. But the more one looks into his past, the less one finds. This is a man who got his legislative seat by using rules, yes "rules", to disqualify his opponents. The bills he passed in his last year in the Illinois legislature? Handed to him on a silver platter by Emil Jones. His election to the U.S. Senate? The Republican opponent had to bow out due to a sex scandal & was replaced by an out-of-stater. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats could have run and won with anybody who was breathing.

He does not appear to have any deep-seated convictions. A review of his career in the Illinois legislature & the U.S. Senate suggests a man who doesn't want to make anybody angry or require him to defend himself. Remember, many of those "present" votes were not orchestrated by Democrats. They were his choice. And he seems to have ducked votes in the Senate that might negatively impact his run for President.

As far as I can tell, he fulfills an unknown (to me) need on the part of Democrats for their own Ronald Reagan: you know, a guy who holds a few global principles, can deliver a good speech, but doesn't want to be bothered by the details.

How does this explain Pelosi's support and, I suspect, Harry Reid's as well? Simple. As a Bay Area resident, I hate to say this but Pelosi has proven herself to be a singularly ineffective Speaker. And Reid might as well be Minority Leader for all that he has accomplished, although he, at least, has the excuse of a 1-vote majority (Lieberman- who no doubt uses his position as an Independent to exert pressure).

The guiding principles of Pelosi and Reid seem to be:
1. Don't make waves.
2. Don't embarrass anybody, Republican or Democrat or the President, by making them go on the record by voting "no" or issuing a veto. Reid counts noses and if he can't get 60 votes (to avoid a fillibuster) or 2/3 to override a veto, he doesn't even bother to put legislation to a vote. After all, why make Republicans angry by actually forcing them to go through the discomfort of a fillibuster? Pelosi seems to rely on a similar strategy.

Their governing philosophy has much in common with Obama's "unity" trope - and his "present" votes. "Let's just all get along." I think Pelosi and Reid see in Obama a President who won't get in their way, a President who will set forth some Reagan-like exhortations and let them go about their business.

But they know that a President Hillary will demand results. She cares about the big picture, but she knows the details matter. She will make demands upon Pelosi and Reid; she will expect them to do everything possible to pass her agenda.

I rather suspect, therefore, that Pelosi and Reid don't really care whether or not Obama becomes President as long as Democrats retain control of the Congress. After all, with McCain in the White House, they can continue to blame their incompetence on a Republican President.

Fire Howard Dean

Does anybody think Howard Dean is doing a good job, or even simply doing his job, as Chairman of the Democratic Party?

He, more than anybody, is responsible for the Florida/Michigan mess. The "rules" were his. It was he who decided that both candidates had to agree to any solution. Obama, of course, can't risk revotes that he might lose by even bigger margins. (I can't help but wonder just what Obama has promised Dean for his support.)

Just as bad, it appears that he isn't even very good at raising money. All year long, I've read articles about Democrats being far ahead of Republicans in the money-raising stakes. But it turns out that the DNC doesn't even have enough money to help pay for revotes in Florida and Michigan.

Can anybody think of anything positive this man does? Is there some way we can recall him and replace him with somebody who knows how to lead?

The Democratic Convention: What's Wrong with Fireworks?

Why does everybody want the Democratic nominee to be selected before the Democratic Convention. (The latest word is that Howard Dean wants the Super Delegates to decide by July 1, 2008.)

Perhaps somebody should talk to Dean about TV coverage. During the last several elections, TV news operations have significantly reduced their coverage of the conventions because nothing happens. They're just big ads for the parties.

But can you imagine what the networks would do if we still don't know the nominee going into the convention? If it's going to be a real, old-fashioned affair? There will be dawn to dusk coverage by all the networks. Tons of free advertising for the Democratic Party - while the Republican convention will get maybe an hour/day.

The DNC is simply dumb, dumb, dumb. But we knew that already, didn't we?

Are They Pro-Obama or Anti-Hillary?

I don't have the bandwith, time or technical skills to test this hypothesis, but the impression I get from TV, magazine, and "liberal" blogs that are for Obama is that the ratio of anti-Hillary rants to pro-Obama posts/opinions/reports/puff pieces is about 10-to-1.

If's as if all the pro-Obama political coverage is actually nothing more than an extension of Just Hillary - whose owner at least openly admits to being obsessed with Hillary.