It Is Time to Take a Stand

I have remained officially neutral since Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the last two standing in the Democratic Presidential campaign. (Sorry Mike Gravel. I respect you but you are not a serious candidate, but I appreciate your taking the opportunity to campaign for a Title VII convention). However, I am at a point where remaining neutral violates my basic principles. For that reason I am announcing my support for Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton (and her representatives) has crossed too many lines in this campaign. That goes from minimizing the experience of Obama while lauding her own. Further, that experience she is touting is not her impressive experience in the Senate, but instead her experience as First Lady. Sorry, but that doesn't play. To make matters worse, she is essentially arguing that John McCain is a better Presidential candidate than Barack Obama (and McCain certainly has more "experience" than she does).

Add to this, her demure at whether Obama is a Christian or not when she clearly knows he is (as he has attended services with her). Or at the very least stating that his religious affiliation is not pertinent to a presidential candidacy. [Of course, Obama has not done this either and he should have.]

Clinton has entered into dirty politics in this campaign which was not only not necessary, but damaging for any Democratic candidate - herself included. Dirty campaigning is a sign of lack of substance. It states that you don't have the ability to win on your own merits, but must tear your opponent down.

Today, the "race card" (and "reverse race card") was played once too often. This time by Geraldine Ferraro. Ferraro is a major fund raiser for Clinton, a former politician, and VP running mate with Mondale in 1984. She stated the following In an interview with John Gibson:

Ferraro: (regarding the democratic super delegates) I expect them to look very carefully at who has the experience ... John, between me and you and your millions of listeners, if Barack Obama were a white man would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary?

Gibson: You mean if he were John Edwards?

Ferraro: If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position? Absolutely not.

Gibson: Geraldine are you playing a race card?

Ferraro: No, and that's the problem. Every time you say the truth. I'm the first person, John, and you know how honest I am, I am the first person who will say that in nineteen hundred and eighty-four, if my name were Gerard instead of Geraldine, I would never have been picked as the Vice Presidential candidate. (full interview linked at end of this article)

Ferraro then further defended her remarks stating:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?" (Daily Breeze, 3/11/08)

Clinton has responded that Ferraro's comments were "regrettable," but has not disavowed the attack.

I am deeply saddened by Ferraro's remarks. She was a trailblazer for women's issues and political voice. For her to take such a stance is more than unfortunate. For Clinton, and her representatives, to make similar implications throughout this campaign is beyond unacceptable. It is an affront.

It is being implied that people across the spectrum are supporting Obama because he is African American. He is certainly more than that. However, his blackness is important. It is important because his experience includes living as an African American in a still racist United States, and that he embraces the lessons that he learned from that. This is a racial "sensibility" that he brings to his highly viable candidacy for President. People recognize this. They recognize his character, and that he has presented himself with integrity despite negative campaigning on the part of Clinton and crew.

One could argue that Clinton brings the lived experience of being a woman in a still sexist United States. However, she has clearly learned to set those woman's sensibilities aside to take on a very male headed approach to politics. In the "old" days of feminism we called this being a "male-headed woman." Likewise, not all people of color have racial sensibility. Nor do all gays and lesbians have gay sensibilities.

Obama's message of hope and vision for change reflects a clear lived experience embracing justice and equality. Clinton is not reflecting a similar sensibility or commitment. Instead, she has subtly and blatantly played the "race card." That "race card" is a "white card." It is stating that race is an issue of sympathy at best, or an appeal to "white guilt" at worst. It minimizes the reality of race in the United States. It minimizes the structured privilege of whiteness and the structured experience of those who are not white. For all that this nation (particularly the white portion of this nation) does not want to address the reality of race, that does not make it any less real.

Barack Obama has demonstrated a level headedness and ability to not be baited into attack that I find both refreshing and reassuring. He espouses a vision of change and justice that resonates with me. While I do not agree with all of his positions and plans, I do believe he is on the right track. He has certainly shown far more honesty, composure and fair play than has Hillary Clinton.