Tag: Obama

THE OBAMA NEW YORKER COVER. YES, THE NEW YORKER

New_yorker_obama_2
OK.  What do we think about this?  I can tell you one thing.  It hurts to look at it, even though I guess I understand what the artist, Barry Blitt, says he was trying to do.  Rachel Sklar’s Huffington Post interview with the magazine’s gifted editor David Remnick explains further.

Obviously I wouldn’t have run a cover just to get
attention — I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say. What I
think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about
Barack Obama’s — both Obamas’ — past, and their politics. I can’t speak for
anyone else’s interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of
images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some,
about Obama’s supposed "lack of patriotism" or his being "soft
on terrorism" or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the
second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow
all this is going to come to the Oval Office.

The free speech and marketplace of ideas concepts that I’ve treasured all my life clash with my reaction to all of this; I know that.  The Constitutional protection of freedom of speech exists to guarantee the right both to speak and to hear not only popular, but also unpopular ideas.  We don’t need to protect the popular ones; it’s the ideas that enrage people that need the protection.  And I’m all for that.

But for a responsible and respected publication like The New Yorker to abuse that freedom by offering such blatant stereotypes to make its point, particularly when the subjects are the first African American Presidential (Columbia and Harvard-educated) candidate and his (Princeton and Harvard-educated) wife, an accomplished attorney — each of whose life trajectory suggests two stars who did everything expected of them to grow into exciting, productive citizens — seems to me abusive and dangerous.  In an effort to make a point about the hate that’s being distributed concerning these two, they’re feeding it. 

It will be interesting to see how many right wing websites and publications make use of this image.  There’s been plenty of reaction so far and most of it is far more sophisticated than I could dream of being.  I’m having too much trouble with my emotional, gut sense of right and wrong to be very thoughtful; this just feels wrong – perhaps even more so because of who printed it.   I’ve been a New Yorker groupie since I was a high school kid in Pittsburgh wishing I was in Greenwich Village living the life of Susie Rotolo.  Like this –  walking through the Village with Bob Dylan.   

So it’s particularly disturbing to me that something so terribly offensive was pubished by this beloved icon.

The stereotypes don’t fit the Obamas, obviously.  That’s what the New Yorker is trying to demonstrate by feeding these stereotypes out there in such a naked way.   But even if they did, how many of us who ever cared about anything is willing to stand by every position we adopted in our younger days?

Congressman Bobby Rush was a Black Panther.  Now he’s chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection,  serves on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and is a co-chairman of the Congressional Biotech Caucus.  Isn’t that what we want?  Growth.

Even if the Obama’s were flamers back then (and I don’t think they were, by a long shot), isn’t the American way for young activists to rebel, maybe the wrong way, early in their lives then "grow up" to ultimately help to make change from inside?  Justice Hugo Black, one of the great justices of the 20th century, started out as a member of the Ku Klux Klan – then went on to be a staunch defender of civil liberties for all.  If we deny our future leaders the capacity to grow and question while they’re young, we will end up with leaders who may be what we deserve, but not who we need, by a long shot.

I guess what I’m saying is that this effort to force Americans to confront political trash talk by offering up a visual representation of it all is, to me, a terrible mistake.  An image that casts a shadow over the remarkable symbolic gift of this landmark candidacy – an image that lingers like a scar.
 

THE OBAMA LANDMARK: RACIAL ATTITUDES ON MY BIRTHDAY

Obama_older_ladyToday is my 62nd birthday.  It’s pretty amazing.  Not only am I, while still healthy and not rickety, able to witness a Democratic primary where a white woman (for the first time) and an African-American man (for the first time) are the major Democratic Presidential candidates.  Not only am I, while still healthy and not rickety, able to witness the probable nomination of the 46 year old product of an interracial marriage, who has lived outside the U.S. in the developing world, and who is running on a platform of unity and commitment to helping our country have a better future.  AND who is the first candidate to sit for a video interview with BlogHer, thus demonstrating a comprehension of women who blog — and those women who read them.

Not only that.  This morning, half-awake, watching C-Span footage of the Obama Iowa rally last night, I saw a nice white Iowa lady of a certain age, like the one in this photo, put one hand on either site of Obama’s face and kiss him on the forehead.  And it wasn’t even a big deal.

You need to realize that in my lifetime as someone old enough to notice – probably the past 40 years — that would have been unthinkable.  That a highly regarded TV drama was canceled after one season because it featured a white male and black female social worker working together and stations across the south refused to carry it.  Slowly, as the Civil Rights movement brought us forward, things changed.  And here, I’m really only talking about symbols – not all those individual life moments that remain so difficult for so many. I believe that when symbols change, real change will follow.  And some of that appears to be true.

Dean_rusk_daughter_2
In September of 1967 Peggy Rusk, daughter of then Secretary of State Dean Rusk, married Guy Smith – and it was so unusual it made the cover of TIME Magazine.  Which wrote this:

Resignation  Offer. As recently as 1948, California law would have made the union a criminal offense in the state. Until last June, when the U.S.
Supreme Court killed Virginia’s miscegenation law, 16 states still banned interracial marriage. More to the
point, and more poignant, in a year when black-white animosity has reached a
violent crescendo in the land, two young people and their parents showed that
separateness is far from the sum total of race relations in the U.S.—that to
the marriage of true minds, color should be no impediment. Indrawn as usual,
Rusk pronounced himself “very pleased.” Clarence Smith, Guy’s father,
said simply: “Two people in love.”

That’s right – Rusk offered to resign because of the wedding – that was
how unusual it was.  In the early 90s I visited a high school
near Cincinnati, OH, which was once KKK country.  I was producing a “space
bridge” — a satellite conversation between high schools in Ohio and Moscow.  The night
before the show I gave a reception for the families of the kids featured
in the program.  As they wandered in, there in the middle of Ohio, I noticed that one couple was comprised of a white man and an African American woman.  Apparently I was the only one who did though.  One of the boys’ parents had divorced and his dad had married this woman who was now the kids’ stepmom.  And in the middle of semi-rural Ohio, close to the Kentucky border, nobody cared.  I guess you’d need to have been around for canceled TV shows and Secretaries of State offers to resign, to be so struck by what happened.

Fast forward to the Grammys, 1990, this winning song and video, with this kiss.


I guess it’s just that we forget how bad things used to be; a kiss like Neville and Ronstadt’s once could ruin both careers.

There’s lots more. But what does all this have to do with a presidential candidate? In Iowa?  I don’t know why but as I watched this morning I was so struck by the changes I’ve seen in my lifetime.  Probably it’s just the birthday.  Whatever happens in the campaign, and I am worried about the race stuff that came out of Kentucky and West Virginia, it was a reminder that at least things are better than they were before.  OH and last week I read that there has not been a white male Secretary of State in the US for 11 years!  Nobody’s been yelling about that, either.

WHO WANTS HILLARY? WHO WANTS BARACK? WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE? WHAT’S AT STAKE?

Clinton_obama_2
You really need to read this guest post at Political Voices of Women, Catherine Morgan‘s remarkable combination of editorial and aggregator.  There are links there to more than 400 women who blog about politics  – and guest posts.  And (full disclosure) yes, sometimes that includes to my work.  But I digress.

On Wednesday, April 23, just after the Pennsylvania primary, Slim, whose blog is called No Fish, No Nuts, was Catherine’s guest blogger.  Slim’s post, which first appeared on her blog, wrote a loving but sad analysis of the Clinton supporters at her county convention where local Democrats elected their delegates.  Listen to this:

Obama’s voters are looking toward Obama as a standard
bearer, as a point man for the change they want to see in the country.
Hillary’s supporters, at least the older women among them, are voting for their
surrogate: because they want to see a woman in the Oval Office before they die,
and because they themselves were denied so many opportunities for advancement
in their own lives.

 

I do not doubt that they also desperately believe in
Hillary Clinton, but their investment in her goes much deeper than politics.
Hillary Clinton is proof that they had it in them all along, the fire, talent
and creativity, and they could have been leaders but for the glass ceiling that
seemed to rise only inches a decade.

Slim also wrote that she was reluctant to offer these observations but that given polls showing many Clinton supporters saying they will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination, and some the other way around, she felt that times were so desperate that she had to weigh in.  In her view, "We cannot afford another 4 years of war, debt and economic stagnation,
the prescription of a McCain presidency. So we Dems cannot allow
Clinton voters (or for that matter, I add, Obama supporters if it goes the other way – though they report this feeling somewhat less frequently) to take their ball and go home come November."

To that I say "amen!"  I was a member of the "Children’s Crusade" that was the 1968 anti-war presidential campaign of Senator Eugene McCarthy.  We worked like demons through New Hampshire, did so well there that it was considered a win even though, technically, we lost, then saw Bobby Kennedy enter the race against us.  We persisted, as did his supporters, until his assassination in June of 1968.  After that, many of his supporters joined us, working still to try to elect a president who would stop the war.  And then.

The riots in Chicago.  The nomination of Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson’s vice president and for way too long a staunch supporter of the war.  And then.  Many, many of my colleagues and friends indeed picked up their footballs and went home.  To stay.  Not only did they not work for Humphrey – that would have been very hard after what had happened in Chicago.  They didn’t even vote for him.  Or vote at all.  And that, my friends, is how we got Richard Nixon.  Which is how we got Watergate.  Which is how we got Jimmy Carter– who made such a mess that we got Ronald Reagan.  Who took apart so much social safety net, environmental and regulatory and other federal function that we thought more was impossible.  Until we got George Bush.  Who decimated much of what was left, including much of our hope.  Until now, when we have two candidates who stand for so much.

Of course that’s simplistic, but what really really upsets me is that every time we educated activists, in our righteousness, take a walk because things aren’t perfect, we aren’t the ones who get hurt the most.  People who are poor, whose kids go to bad schools, whose unemployment insurance runs out too soon, who no longer can afford even in-state tuition or, for many, community college tuition, to say nothing of HEALTH INSURANCE (an issue which reaches up into the middle class) — and of course the war, where low-income people do most of the enlisting…these people are the ones who are hurt the most. 

We let our singular perception of what’s perfect become the enemy of the good – or at least better than bad – that we could help to bring into being.  It’s infantile.  It’s sad.  It’s shameful. And unless all of us in the blog universe who feel this way make a lot of noise and take lots of friends to lunch no matter WHO gets the nomination, it’s going to happen again. 

Thanks to Slim for her great post that inspired this rant.

IS JOHN STEWART A POLITICAL KING (QUEEN) MAKER? DOES COMEDY RULE? SHOULD IT?

Snl_3
I used to run a television newscast for teenagers.  It was tough to get them to pay much attention to the news, so one of the features I experimented with was "If you don’t know the news, you can’t get the jokes." Dennis Miller was doing Saturday Night Update then, and sadly, wouldn’t talk to us, so the idea failed.  It wasn’t that original anyway; humor has always been part of American politics.  But I wanted the kids to care more about it – and I thought that connecting news and cool comedy would help.   I’m pretty sure I was right; political comedy is certainly a factor this year’s campaign.  If you’re my age, you’re probably sitting there thinking "Hasn’t this woman ever heard of Mort Sahl?  Yup.  He’s just turned 80 and his political humor is as sharp as ever.  But he didn’t have a daily "Daily Show" as a podium. Look at this:

 

I started thinking about this because this headline just appeared in the Media Bistro LA edition – which linked to this piece in the Washington Post.  Comedy, at least this year, is an important factor in the campaign.  Of course, Bill Clinton rebounded from one of his many backslides in 1992 with a saxophone-playing appearance on standup comedian and talk show host Arsenio Hall’s show.  This clip, in fact, appeared on Channel One, the show I used to run! 

That was the second time Clinton used nightly talk as a life preserver.  After this disastrous keynote convention speech in 1988

Clinton went on the Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show and did the same thing.  Not quite comedy but definitely popular culture.  Carson had a unique impact, too.  A wise Republican political consultant told me he could tell the mood of the country by listening to which jokes audiences responded to on The Tonight Show.  So this year, despite all the fuss about Comedy Central, is not the first time that the worlds of entertainment and comedy have had more than a small role in choosing our leaders.  And those are just in the past few elections. (OH, and don’t forget JibJab. )

Hogarth_the_times_2
We aren’t alone, of course.  The 18th Century British cartoonist William Hogarth, is still taught in political propaganda classes.   This one, The Times, is an example.   

The difference today may be the ubiquitousness of any information that emerges; it’s not just in some elitist newspaper, it’s all over the place.  It may also be the diminished influence of what used to be our respected news media.  Young people (and others) turn to comedy not just because it’s arch, and fun, but because it’s less pretentious and heavy-handed, and treats audience members as co-conspirators rather than as a single passive body. 

I worry that the deflation of our leaders that comes from the Comedy Central syndrome is as scary as it is useful.  Americans like to believe; that’s part of the appeal of both Obama and McCain, I think.  And it’s possible to believe without mindless acceptance.  But if all, or most of one’s information emerges from the acerbic minds of comedy writers, does it undermine any capacity to follow a leader in what are truly perilous times? 

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Fireside Chats and other communications with Americans, was able to bring the country along as war drew closer.  Doris Kearns Goodwin, in NO ORDINARY TIME*, one of my favorite books, tells the story of one chat in particular.  FDR asked Americans, in advance, to get a
map of the world and follow along as he described the current state of the war.  Maps sold
out. And the Americans who had bought them sat there by the radio and followed as Roosevelt spoke.  You don’t need comedy to inspire confidence when you have that kind of respect for your audience.  I guess you could say that FDR was a kind  of rock star who had built such a relationship with Americans during the Depression that  he was in a different situation, but still, it’s a provocative example to place against 5 minute guest spots with Stewart or Colbert. 

This has been long and a bit rambling because I’m trying to think it all out here – and I still don’t have an answer.  I do think it’s going to be interesting to see how long this trend lasts — at least in this incarnation.

*go to the link and search inside under Fireside Chat and map and you will find the story (pg. 319)

 

BITCH IS THE NEW BLACK – WHAT DO WE THINK?

This is old now and all over the interweb PLUS all the feminist listservs that reach my mailbox.  What’s the verdict?  Funny?  Post-Feminist?  JUST funny?  Too true to BE funny? Too funny to be true?  Other?  Check one (or more…)

OBAMA, CLINTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE AND PRIMARIES – 1968 AND 2008

Mccarthy_winsIn the 1968 New Hampshire primary, 40 years ago, Senator Eugene McCarthy got 42% of the vote running against Lyndon Johnson .

That was enough to be viewed as a win, since no one thought he’d get anywhere close to those numbers.  That  victory by the only national politician with the guts to run against the Vietnam War sent a shock through the Democratic Party.

McCarthy’s effort, often called “The Children’s Crusade,” was comprised largely of college students (including me) who abandoned their studies to come to New Hampshire and work to help to stop the war.  Now, as I watch Barack Obama, and see the the numbers of young people propelling his success, I know just how they feel — and what awaits them if they fail. 

Then too, win or lose, things will be tough for Senator Clinton. Obama, seen not only as a change agent but also as someone who offers the hope and optimism of a JFK, has captured the imaginations not only of young people but also of many journalists, most notorious of whom is the conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks.  That means that anyone who wrests the nomination away from him will be perceived as the breaker of young hearts, standing in the way of idealism and the candidate who brought young people fully in to the system.*

That’s exactly what happened in 1968.  The New Hampshire victory brought Robert Kennedy into the race – establishing, until his tragic death, a three-way battle – two dissidents against the juggernaut of the Democratic establishment.  Then later, Hubert Humphrey, candidate of that establishment and for years, as Vice President, public and energetic supporter of Johnson’s war, won the nomination.

To all of us, he had stolen the nomination.  Many (not me) were so bitter that they refused to vote for him.  Remember, for most of us, as for many of Obama’s young supporters, this was our first presidential campaign.  Hillary Clinton, should she prevail further down the line, will face the same broken-hearted campaigners.  Once the anti-establishment, anti-war student and Watergate hearing staffer, in the eyes of these young people she’ll be cast as the villain.

Mccarthy_poster

For evidence of how long that bitterness lasts, take a look at this quote from the American Journalism Review, from the 1968 Chicago Convention, riot and Hum prey coronation recollections of veteran Washington Post columnist  David Broder.  It’s about me – but it’s also about any young American who takes a stand and loses .

He recalls coming into the hotel lobby from the park where demonstrations were underway and spotting a woman he had first met during the Eugene McCarthy campaign in New Hampshire. “Her name was Cindy Samuels,” Broder still remembers. “She was seated on a bench crying. She had been gassed. I went over and I put my arm around her and I said: ‘Cindy. What can I do for you?’ She looked up at me with tears on her face and said: ‘Change things.’

NOTE:  As I searched for links for this post I found a David Corn piece saying much the same thing.  I want to take note of it since the ideas came to me independently but I didn’t want it to seem that I drew from his.

 

BARACK, RUSH AND HATE BEYOND HATE

You aren’t going to believe this!  The fact that this aired on a "mainstream" program –albeit Rush Limbaugh, is, indeed, beyond belief.

The viciousness of it, and the fact that Limbaugh remains so popular, is very scary. Inspired by my friend Cooper Munroe, who posts her outrages, I offer it here. If it won’t play (I am NOT quite clever at the relationship between TypePad and YouTube) here’s the link.

HILLARY, THE TONKIN GULF AND 1984

Hilary_video OK, those folks who run TypePad and YouTube haven’t found a way to add this blog host to automatic video posting so I’m hooking a link in right here  so you can watch this.  I can’t decide what I think – it’s funny and clever and a perfect definition of a mashup but it’s also mean and off-mark.  While many, including many feminists, have issues with Senator Clinton – this 1984/Apple Commercial version isn’t representative of most of them.  Accusations of opportunism and flabbiness on the war are not the same as totalitarianism.  True, she voted for the Patriot Act, but so did all but two Senators – and one of them didn’t vote at all! 

Now, I remind myself – we still remember who voted against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (Senators Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska) and that was in 1964 so maybe this vote will last too.  Anyway, I don’t know where I’ll land politically this year – I’m really just thinking about the power of the kinds of media manipulation (in the technical sense) that are possible today.  How will we ever help newer voters figure out how to determine the truth?  Are they so much more evolved than we are in a media sense that we needn’t worry, or is the dismal lack of critical thinking work in current No Child Left Behind education going to affect how people think in the voting booth as well as our educational standing in the world?

Thoughts?