PopConsumer

Racial Politics: What's The Obama Marriage Got To Do With It?

The late summer, pre-convention politics lull finds the void being filled with several deep-thinking magazine articles focused on Barack Obama and issues of race.

New York magazine recently published an issue with several pieces looking at race and politics. Notably, one article is capturing the attention of several bloggers. Vanessa Grigoriadis' article titled: Black & Blacker: The racial politics of the Obama marriage was not well received, at best.

Grigoriadis tries to draw insight into a number of issues of race and identity for both Barack and Michelle Obama and to look at issues of race and racism that affect voters. The result is an unfortunate mish-mash of previously discussed issues and interpretations and the discussion does not contain a central thesis that I can discern which relates to "the racial politics of the Obama marriage."

The author does touch on some of the specific concerns Michelle and Barack face navigating in a predominantly white world while identifying and being identified as black. Grigoriadis does touch on some of the ways in which Barack and Michelle's separate experiences intersect but she does not delve deeply into why such intersections might matter to their marriage or how their marriage might shape their identities. She also points out that the fact that Michelle is not only a strong, black woman but also darker-skinned than Barack, endears Barack to some black voters and solidifies his blackness for them:

“The fact that Barack did not choose a lighter-skinned woman sends a message to me,” says one supporter. Says another, “When I look at Michelle, Barack doesn’t have to be any blacker for me.”

One thesis in the article about Michelle seems to particularly bother many bloggers:

As much as any political campaign is an extended meditation on authenticity, the question of just how black the Obamas are has become particularly loaded. Michelle must project herself as black to one community, but she also must act white to another, whatever either adjective means nowadays.

Ultimately I think this illustrates the weakness of the article and why it angered many black women. Though it purports to be about the Obama's marriage it is actually more about issues of black identity, using Barack and Michelle Obama as meta examples and about issues of race, racism, politics and Obama's campaign specifically. One of the central themes within that discussion is an idea that Michelle has a too strong, too angry blackness which is mitigating what the author perceives as Barack's post-racial, category-transcending blackness. It is difficult to read an article from a white author that makes so many assumptions and observations about black identity that feel false and alien to actual black people and several bloggers have expressed their frustrations.

rikyrah cross-posts at Jack & Jill Politics and Mirror on America about "The Obamas as Racial Rorschach Test, Version Number 29382983." Regarding the "acting white" quote pulled above, rikyrah writes:

Well, if you don't know whatever either adjective means nowadays, why the hell did you say it? I believe I've recorded darn near every speech Michelle Obama has given on C-Span. And, I've told folks, I've never paid to hear Barack Obama, but I have paid to hear Michelle, multiple times. In front of predominantly Black audiences. I'm trying to discern this ' Black' Michelle Obama that I paid to see vs. the supposed , what ' ACTING WHITE' Michelle Obama I see on C-Span?

Um....there is no difference.

SJP shares her thoughts at Michelle Obama Watch and her personal blog, Sojourner Place and, like me, she had difficulty understanding the argument and asks:

“Acting white”? What if anything any of this has to do with the “racial politics of the Obama marriage”? Perhaps in reading the entire article, MOWers might be able to discern what the point of this article was intended to be.

And at her blog, SJP also asks:

That's the end? So what are the racial politics of the Obama marriage? Did I miss something?... Going to read it again!

What About Our Daughters thinks they may have found the message:

You have to read the ENTIRE article because it gets worse as you read along to this writer’s ultimate conclusion: “White people can’t trust Barack because he married a BLACK woman“. Because THAT’s the main idea consciously or unconsciously from this article. Don’t marry a SISTAH or she’ll bring to down!

Just a reminder, if you find the author's interpretation of Michelle misguided, Michelle speaks for herself here at BlogHer.

The race issue of New York magazine also includes The Color-Coded Campaign, by John Heilemann, which looks at the potential effect of voter racism on Obama's campaign as does Charles Blow's recent op-ed from the New York Times, Racism and the Race.

The invisibility of racism is covered in Patricia J. Williams piece in New York, Talking About Not Talking About Race: Why even the most well-meaning whites and blacks can't hear each other:

Since, in actuality, more is on the record about every step of Obama’s life than possibly any candidate on the planet, this particular brand of demonization has been accomplished by the insinuations of erasure: If you took away his “pretty words,” he’d be nothing. If you took away his race, he’d be nothing. If only he didn’t have a brain, he’d be nothing, nothing, nothing. It’s a circular, nonsensical mantra—magical thinking, wrapped in the fiction of “but really, I never see race.” This kind of denial masquerading as color-blind idealism cannot be our compass at this exciting and potentially transformative moment.

Matt Bai wrote a piece for the New York Times Magazine which asks the provocative question, Is Obama the End of Black Politics?

Princeton professor, Melissa Harris-Lacewell answers "No."

Before I even opened the magazine I had my answers ready: "No," "Absolutely not," "Are they kidding?" and "Has any person, even once, asked themselves if George W. Bush is the end of white politics?"

And, BlogHer CE Kim Pearson links at her personal blog, Professor Kim's News Notes, a 41-page rebuttal to the new book about Obama from widely-discredited "swift boating" author Jerome Corsi.

Cross posted at BlogHer.com

The $5 Challenge Bonus Round

The $5 Challenge has been rather inactive of late. Not many politicians speaking truth to power lately. But I did donate $5 (+$3.34) to a guy running for state office in Kansas. Um, "why?" you might ask. Because of this comic. And for the thank you note.

The comic strip -- at www.seantevis.com/3000 -- was first posted online July 16. Today, when he files his campaign finance forms with the Kansas secretary of state's office, Tevis will report that he has raised $95,162.76 in donations through PayPal, the online service that allows payments and money transfers via the Internet.

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential bid has transformed the way presidential candidates use the Internet to reach volunteers and donors -- particularly donors who give relatively small amounts. Now Tevis' success underscores how such online grass-roots efforts are also revolutionizing down-ticket races.

Backstory

Hat tip to @olevia, @MarilynM and Ayşe E.

Is Black the New Bitch?

This week, just in time for the panel on which I will be speaking at BlogHer (Race and Gender: What are the lessons of 2008) the political universe goes and plops down a gift wrapped race and gender intersectionality political issue for me to blog.

Jesse Jackson on Barack Obama * I wanna cut his nuts off!

Some observers have focused on the intra-racial aspects of Jesse Jackson's claim that in Obama's speeches on fatherhood, Obama is "talking down" to black Americans. The added dimension to this comment that exposed some debate and division within the African American community, is the sexism in Jackson's comment about his desire to castrate Obama. Did Jackson feel comfortable directing his comment to Obama in part because Obama is black?

Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is

In my last post I wrote this: "Let's all channel our energy productively instead of towards all the ways in which we are pissed, disappointed, feeling slighted and put out."

And I'll admit that I felt those negative emotions towards Hillary Clinton and her campaign and towards the Democratic party at times.  It now appears that, much as how some Clinton supporters are holding on to their disappointment, anger and hurt feelings towards Obama and are saying that they are thinking of not supporting Obama or voting against him, some Obama supporters are unwilling to let go of their anger and hurt feelings towards Clinton.

But today I put my money where my mouth is.  We have to move forward and get on with electing Obama (or defeating McCain if you prefer).  So I am going to be positive and productive.  I contributed today towards retiring Clinton's debt.

Am I happy she incurred that debt so that she could go on attacking Obama and paying Mark Penn when she had been mathematically eliminated months earlier?  No, of course not.  But am I happy that lots of energized Democrats registered and turned out in the primaries?  Yes, I am.  And if we have any hope of harnessing that energy moving forward, winning the election and actually creating change after the past eight years, we need to get past our petty differences on all sides and work together.  Eliminating Clinton's debt will help us do that.

What positive steps are you taking to elect Obama, strengthen the Democratic majority in the House and Senate, or to elect women and progressives at every level of government?

Please Stop Demanding That Mythical Perfect Be The Enemy of Obama Good

My head is going to explode from the constant drumbeat from both the right and left that Obama is somehow a "flip-flopper."  This is to be expected from Republicans (even though not only is it amazing that the are getting away with it but that McCain surrogates can go around saying things like it's risky for Obama's campaign to point out McCain's flopping around like a fish out of water).

What is frightening is the attack from the left.  It's your fault if you didn't pay attention to where Obama stood on many of these issues.  Julie Pippert at MOMocrats has done a fantastic job of doing the homework for you.  Um, you know that right wing talking point that Obama is the most liberally liberal ever in the history of politics is bull, right?  You want some purist progressive?  Then why aren't you touting Kucinich as a third party candidate?  Why aren't you supporting Nader?

When I was doing my research on candidates I decided to support Obama largely because he is pragmatic and compromises.  You know I'd love to see my Congressperson, Barbara Lee running the world.  But I doubt she could be elected outside of Northern California, possibly only this district.  She's famous for being the only member of Congress to vote against authorizing the president to use force against Afghanistan after 9/11.  People here created bumper stickers in her honor for that vote but being the only vote in Congress wont advance your agenda very far.  There is no perfect candidate who will champion my views but there is a candidate who not only can win the election but will be able to govern and actually accomplish something.

Let's take the FISA issue.  This is to me the closest Obama has come to changing his position but he is doing so for the sake of compromise.  I may not like it but I get it.  But to me the most important question on this is: do I think Obama will be the kind of president who would even institute illegal wire tapping and demand telecom immunity?  No I do not.  And I do think McCain is.

What Obama can accomplish as a legislator is one thing.  And it's why it's really hard for senators to get elected.  They have records and they have to take votes.  But as president I don't think Obama will be the kind of Constitution killer Bush has been.  McCain promises to follow in Bush's footsteps and I believe him.

Obama can vote against the FISA bill and it will likely happen anyway.  Let Dodd and Feingold filibuster and maybe it won't happen but cynically I doubt it.

The other latest lefty oh-noes! are around abortion and faith-based initiatives.  Obama did an interview with a Christian magazine where he talked about these issues.  Most of the reaction I've seen has been to the wildly imaginative accusations about WHAT THIS MEANS.  It means that Obama has been consistent on these issues and, might I add, identical to Hillary Clinton.  Which it makes it all the richer that feminist supporters of Clinton are among the most outraged.  Allow me to remind you that a couple of years ago you were the same folks giving Clinton grief for saying the exact same things.

Here are a few things to think about:

Faith based programs - the head of this under Bush left because it had become politicized.  The government can support faith organization programs without violating church-state separation.  I hear those of you who worry about a slippery slope but let me give you an example of how it can work.  Habitat for Humanity is a faith based organization.  I've worked on several Habitat houses and never once has any issue or discussion of religion ever come up.  Habitat has arguably done a better job of rebuilding in the gulf coast region post Katrina and Rita than has FEMA.  Which organization would you rather your tax dollars support?

Abortion - please read the original article.  Obama does not mention a multitude of ways in which he wants to limit or restrict abortions as many of the commentary on the interview imagines and fears.  He is responding to email rumors that he supports not only unlimited abortion on demand under any and all circumstances but wants to kill babies that are clever enough to survive the assault by the idiot mommy who was too stupid to seek an abortion before the ninth month and the evil abortionist.  The right says Obama wants to KILL BABIES DEAD!  And because he does not actually support the most extreme liberal abortion rights options you are considering expressing your displeasure by helping elect someone who has consistently supported overturning Roe and who will likely have the opportunity to appoint three supreme court justices who could usher in a 40+ year era of rollback and restrictions on reproductive and other women's rights.  Your leaps of logic in this area dazzle me.

Abstinence - Obama says he supports abstinence education which is not the same as abstinence only education.  Oh and you know who else who supports faith-centered education, promoting abstinence, some regulation at the extremes consistent with Roe and focusing on prioritizing reducing abortions rather than expanding the scope of abortion rights beyond Roe?  Why yes that would be Hillary Clinton:

"Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this — and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do."

Abortion is "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," said Clinton. Then she went further: "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

If you don't like Obama, fine.  If you've suddenly discovered he is not the unicorn of your making, fine.  Folding your arms and pouting because Obama isn't properly wooing you and making you pink puffy heart him?  Stop.  You don't have to like Obama.  Obama doesn't have to be your dream candidate or dream date.  Unless you believe in what McCain is promising (and believe what he is saying now - quit clinging to some image of him as a bi-partisan party-line bucking Maverick - if you don't believe that McCain will continue Bush's policies as he says he will then you would be voting for him because you believe him to be a liar).  If you believe Bob Barr or Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney best represents the vision of the presidency you hold then vote for them.  But the next president will be either Barack Obama or John McCain.  And if you can't muster up the enthusiasm to vote for Obama then vote against McCain.  Quit whining and moaning that somehow not voting or voting against your interests will punish the DNC or show Obama or teach anybody to come around to your point of view.  It's astonishingly narcissistic and will only punish me and the rest of the country.

And, a special memo to disgruntled Clinton supporters:  The presidential race is not the only race.  If you don't want to support or send money to or whatever for Obama then find some female candidates who need your help.  Emily's list is a great place to start.

And, a special memo to disgruntled DNC and Democratic party haters:  How about focusing on ensuring a solid Democratic majority in the House and Senate?  It will be much easier to get legislation through with a solid majority.

Let's all channel our energy productively instead of towards all the ways in which we are pissed, disappointed, feeling slighted and put out.

Oh, and I forgot to add - Obama's response to the charges he is shifting his positions.

Clinton Supporters - I Need Your Help

I am an Obama supporter as evidenced by those badges and widgets over on the right sidebar.  I am also a woman and feminist who has struggled to understand how many women have interpreted some of Obama's words as sexist slights.  I don't need a catalog of all the complaints, I've read them all.  This piece by Ayelet Waldman did the best job of helping me grok some of the issue, probably because it comes from an Obama supporter.

But this passage I read today (in a piece which is excellent and looks at the ways in which Obama can better reach out to women in general and Clinton supporters specifically) makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever:

Some people read it as condescending when he said in one speech that Hillary Clinton had "shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age."

I cannot understand how that could be heard as condescending.  It seems respectful and truthful to me.  Reading that makes me wonder if we've become too sensitive in perceiving everything as an attack.  If that is condescending then can Obama possibly ever speak of Hillary Clinton or any woman in a way that will not be perceived as sexist?

I would really appreciate any comments that can help me understand how you are receiving this message if you found it condescending or if you have any thoughts or insight as to how or why some women would.

Thank you!

Hillary Clinton's Real Shame: The Audacity of Cynicism

Hillary Clinton again referenced the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as an explanation of why she finds it incomprehensible that some are calling for her exit from the race for the Democratic nomination for the sake of party unity.  The thing about this reference I find appaling is not so much the implication that she's staying in because Barack Obama might be assassinated, because I do not think she thinks that, but rather the implicit premise of her argument, repeated in her non-apology and her continued shock, shock I say, that anyone took offense, that the American people are too stupid to recognize the fallacy of her desperate spin.

Yes, there were primary contests in June when RFK and Bill Clinton competed for the Democratic Presidential nomination.  And that is the extent of the accuracy and appropriateness of her analogy.  Bill Clinton did not begin to compete until New Hampshire in February of 1992 and possibly his main rival for the nomination, Paul Tsongas, exited the race in March.  (H/T Fortysomething chick)  Jerry Brown remained in the race but it was mathematically impossible for him to secure the nomination in April.  California's delegate-rich June primary was merely a formality which gave Bill Clinton the majority of pledged delegates.  Ironically, a mathematical path to the nomination which both Bill and Hillary Clinton now dismiss as irrelevant.

Robert Kennedy was in the race in June when he was tragically murdered having entered only several weeks before.

It is simply nonsensical to claim that a nomination race stretching from January to June, with a campaign going for 1 1/2 years and having the most democratic inclusion of late states and territories is in any way precedented.  The closest analogy in the Democratic party is probably 1980 when Ted Kennedy extended to the convention the division started by John Anderson's pull of support away from President Jimmy Carter.  The party entered the general election not wholly unified and lost.  An accurate historical reference for her argument only bolsters the notion that she is dividing the party and damaging the chances of Democrats returning to the White House.

She mentions RFK and Bill Clinton being in the race in June and reinforcing the Kennedy reference with the mention of the assassination because she expects it will anchor the analogy's timing in listeners' minds.  And she is counting on nobody thinking beyond "oh, yeah, June."

This is part of her continued pattern of making arguments with the thinest underpinnings of truthiness and then blaming the victim when many are understandably hurt and offended by the deeper odious implications in her comments.  As with the "hard-working Americans, white Americans" comment she wasn't being racist just as she was not calling for Obama's assassination in these.  But using arguments that will hold some appeal to racists and possibly unhinged haters and leaving them hanging in the air unchallenged and unrepented just in the hopes of winning a few more points towards bargaining chips in a losing cause is beyond cynical.

It is not at all surprising that many heard Clinton's reference as containing horrific implications about Obama.  I would be willing to bet that the number of death threats Obama receives is exponentially higher than Hillary Clinton.  The volume of death threats is why he received Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate in history.  Yes she's mentioned this argument several times for months and hasn't been challenged but that doesn't make it less offensive when it finally blew up on YouTube.

The non-apology offered only reinforces the perception that Hillary Clinton is cynically playing the American people for suckers.  "I regret that you were offended" means "it's your own damn fault for being too sensitive."  "I did not intend the unfortunate implication of my remarks but I certainly understand how they could be taken that way."  "I regret my comments and I am sorry for the pain I caused with for the American people as well as any pain I might have caused the Kennedy family," is actually an apology and does not underestimate the ability of people to hear through the carefully crafted avoidance of ever, ever admitting having made a mistake.  However, instead she instructs us now that the only mistake is ours if offended by her comments.

Further compounding the cynicism is today's spin that it's all Obama's fault for telling his sheepish cult to generate faux outrage.  Take a look at the clip below (H/T Roadkill Refugee) and tell me the concern about the notion implicit in Hillary Clinton's remarks, however unintended it might have been, is not real and justified.

BlogHer Exclusive Interview with Barack Obama

I'm thrilled that Barack Obama accepted the opportunity to respond to questions from the voter manifesto developed by the BlogHer community.  I helped develop those questions and so I feel a very personal connection to hearing his response.  I hope that Senators Clinton and McCain will follow Senator Obama's lead and also sit down and talk with BlogHer.

Wrong For Pennsylvania

Hat tip Karoli

Time to Reclaim the FCC

Recently @QueenofSpain (blogger Erin Kotecki Vest) was stirring up trouble over on twitter as she is wont to do.  This time it was ab0ut an article regarding pushing some limits:

They also raise questions about the placement of “30 Rock” as an anchor of what an NBC executive, Ben Silverman, has designated the “family hour.”

Erin's outraged stemmed over Silverman proclaiming a family hour and then airing shows in that time slot which are arguably not family friendly fare.

The article is badly written and therefore I think Erin's outrage is misplaced.  Silverman has not designated a family hour.  The so-called family hour is a practice the FCC asked the major broadcast networks to voluntarily adopt in 1975 after complaints about violence and sex being broadcast.  NBC did not create "family hour" nor do they (or any other network) currently market the 8:00 time slot as family hour. 

Also, the sanctity of family hour was violated long ago.  I remember some outrage about a sitcom in the 1980's where a child character said "you suck" during the family hour.  Some were convinced that this certainly heralded the demise of western civilization.  Time has shown we had so much further to go.

The real travesty in my mind is that outrage of any sort expressed to the FCC no longer results in any action in favor of the community and citizens.  Prior to the vote on allowing further media consolidation thousands of citizens at hearings around the country and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle urged FCC chairman Kevin Martin to not press forward with this move.  And Martin pushed it through anyway.  The FCC has become a lackey serving corporate interests rather than acting in service to the citizens of the United States who own the airwaves and grant corporations the right to broadcast over them as long as they do so with consideration to our needs and concerns.  They have no capitalist right to profit from the public good we lease to them without regard to our voices.

When I tweeted this view as best I could in 140 characters, @Stranahan (videomaker Lee Stranahan) expressed concern that I was perhaps sliding down the slippery slope towards advocating censorship.  I certainly don't but it's hard to explain in a tweet, so I'm here blogging.  My desire for greater FCC control is not out of a belief that we need the FCC or the government in any way to save us from the horrors of MILF Island at 8:00 pm.  Rather it's that I believe in the notion that the public owns and has a right to be the boss of the airwaves.

Stranahan's other concern is that such regulation invariably focuses on censoring sex rather than violence.  True that.  We are a prudish society and whether it's the MPAA, the government or parents up in arms that little Bobby saw Janet Jackson's nipple at half time, too many Americans care much more about having the kiddies eyes shielded from naked body parts than from bloody body parts.

Still, I believe that if we want the FCC to pay attention to Americans when we say we want net neutrality (300 people showed up at Stanford yesterday to tell the FCC and Comcast to stop throttling) and do not want corporate consolidation of news outlets which further limits the independent points of views we hear and that we want local news outlets to cover local news and not just run AP newswire pieces (which are increasingly biased and crappy), then we have to allow for our prim and proper neighbors to also say they don't want talk of tits and boners at 8 pm and not expressing concern over simulated machine gun deaths, autopsies and The Donald's combover.

The latest example of the need for a mechanism for holding the media's feet to the fire when they are not acting in the public interest is the recent presidential debate on ABC.   ABC is ignoring the tens of thousands of complaints it has received about the non-issue questions asked by claiming people actually are deeply concerned with nonsensical symbolic tabloid drama.  Baratunde Thurston (of Jack and Jill Politics and Good Crime Think) suggests ABC's broadcast license should be revoked.

I know that will never happen but perhaps the FCC can help we the people compel ABC to actually act in the public interest should they ever have the fortune to air another debate especially one riddled with commercials and highly profitable coming at a time when ratings for such debates are at a record high.