(Ba)rack and a Hard Case

So, I just read this article by Zillah Eisenstein on Common Dreams, and, to be honest,I found it so infuriating that I ended up just skimming it. I really don't even know how to articulate my own response or rebuttal to Eisenstein's "theory," and while there is much here that is intriguing and perhaps even rooted in truth, I think, on the whole, this particular piece of her writing is riddled with holes and fallacies. Here's an excerpt:

"Hillary’s preoccupation with white voters is a dead give-a-way of how she thinks about gender, and being a woman. Gender is white to her, like race is black. Bill and Hillary Clinton have thrown African-Americans to the wind because they thought they could play the gender card with its history of whiteness and win."

Uh...

I'm not so sure anyone can say that Clinton has "thrown African-Americans" to the wind. I mean, Blacks make up less than 13% of the population, and, depending on which poll you consult, anywhere from 85 - 93% of the Black vote is going to Obama. Is anyone taking Black voters to task for voting based solely on skin color? Or Obama, for courting the Black vote by relying on his "Blackness"? Who's raising that issue? I mean, Clinton's and Obama's voting records and political stances are way too similar to account for Obama getting 90% of the Black vote--there is no way to explain this except to say that many Blacks are voting for Obama simply because he's Black. Clinton is not getting 90% of the white votes or of women's votes anywhere.

Now, I do not mean to imply that Clinton should forgo courting the Black vote simply because she doesn't have a chance of getting it--though I actually think that's mostly true--I just think when talking about these issues, the way the voters are perceiving the candidates is just as important as the way the politicians are (supposedly) campaigning. I mean, the other huge elephant in the room, for me, is the fact that Obama is just as White as he is Black. I mean, jesus, people, his mother is fucking White! And he was raised, except for that four-year-stint in Jakarta, by his white grandparents in a mostly white town and attended a mostly white high school and then eventually landed at (mostly white) Harvard...

You know, there used to be this thing in the United States called the "rule of hypodescent," which was also known as the "one-drop rule." This rule is rooted in our illustrious colonial past and was used to determine the lineage of a mixed-race child. It states that even one drop of Black blood in your veins is enough to make you Black. 'Cause, you know, it's so potent and stuff. So, even if you looked white, even if you had to reach all the way back to your great-great-great grandpappy to find some Black blood in your ancestry, that "one drop" would be enough to make you Black. And, of course, being Black severely restricted your freedoms and limited your opportunities. So, naturally, any fair-minded, thinking person recognized this rule as the control mechanism that it was intended to be (control of Black people is inextricably linked to control of White women's sexuality, though that's another blog...).

Flash-forward to the 21st-fucking century, where people are gleefully clinging to this supposedly offensive and antiquated notion--Obama is touted as the "Black candidate" and everyone is talking about the possibility of the first "Black president" and ...

What the fuck?

Dude is Black AND White. Period.

Anyway.

So, you know, I was actually a Kucinich supporter, and then I leaned toward Edwards, before being forced to choose between Clinton and Obama. I took the tests at http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm, and Clinton's voting record is more progressive and more in line with my own views than is Obama's. Also, my mom and grandma and I were all pretty stoked after Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and I bought my grandma "The Audacity of Hope" as soon as I could get my hands on a copy.

Grandma read it, and then I read it, too.

Neither my grandma nor I were impressed. In fact, we found much of what Obama had to say very troubling. Paul Street's review pretty much reflects my own thoughts, and here are some excerpts:

"... Obama relates youthful discomfort with his college roommates' 'irresponsible' criticism of 'capitalism' and then confesses respect for Ronald Reagan's supposed success in embodying what Obama calls 'American's longing for order' (p. 31)."

"... Obama commends 'the need to raise money from economic elites to finance elections' for 'prevent[ing] Democrats...from straying too far from the center' and for marginalizing 'those within the Democratic Party who tend toward zealotry' (p. 38) and 'radical ideas' (like peace and justice)."

"Obama contends that defense of New Deal and Great Society programs is contrary to 'the changing circumstances of globalization' (p.38)."

"The American people, Obama argues, harbor only modest expectation of their government (p.7), reflecting little concern (by Obama's account) with traditional left goals of social justice and equality. There's no room in Obama's downsized image of popular 'hopes' for the citizenry's widespread disgust at savage socioeconomic inequity in the United States."

"... Obama praises the United States' founders for 'recognize[ing] that there were seeds of anarchy in the idea of individual freedom, an intoxicating danger in the idea of equality.' If 'everybody is truly free, without the constraints of birth or rank and an inherited social order,' Obama asks, then 'how can we ever hope to form a society that coheres?' (pp. 86-87).

I find that last quote particularly chilling, and it brings to mind a classroom debate at EMU that arose when the professor asked the class which they considered most important--freedom or equality... I guess that's another blog, too, though you can check out Eric Foner's The Story of American Freedom for a particularly rich account of how the idea of freedom in the United States has changed with the socio-economic times...

So yeah, Street is obviously no fan of Clinton, and, honestly, she has done and said things that make me cringe. But, again--I support her mostly because her voting record is more reflective of my own views than is Obama's--barely so, but still, enough to matter to me (it's on social issues where I diverge from Obama and am a bit closer to Clinton; economically, they're about the same for me). Still, I will admit right here, that if their voting records were the same and if I found them both just as likable and competent, then I would still vote for Clinton.

And yes--because she's a woman. Why the fuck not?

I just wouldn't vote for her only because she's a woman. But I am not above letting that fact tip the scale in her favor if all else were equal. But, all things are not equal, and, compared to Obama, I think Clinton's smarter and tougher and, honestly, I also think she's warmer and more real. I am sure that I will get lambasted for that statement. Whatever.

Also, I am one of those crazy people who actually think that Clinton's stint as First Lady actually does give her an edge--she was in the White House for eight fucking year as a very interested observer and sometimes-participant in political machinations, domestic and foreign. I cannot comprehend the self-delusion it takes to negate the importance of that experience. Finally, and this is a big one for me, I like Clinton's chances against McCain much better than I like Obama's chances.

I am cranky.

I think Clinton has been treated pretty viciously--by the media, by pundits, and by regular-joe citizens who just seem to boil with hatred for her. Still, the truth is, this election is incredibly disappointing, and though I claim a distinction can be made between Obama and Clinton, it really is fairly slim. So, I guess I am relying a lot on my gut, like I think a lot of voters are doing. And something in my guts is turned off by Obama's rhetoric, which seems either naive or coldly calculating--neither of which work for me. Also, there is something messianic about his campaign and his followers--all this "I am asking you to believe" and "join the movement" stuff--that makes me shudder. Finally, it seems as if Obama's campaign is rooted in symbolism and the idea of change more than in a concrete plan for leading the country.

I gotta go.

I leave you with this: