Barack Obama: The Vacillation of Now

As I write this, it’s nearly midnight on Tuesday, November 3, 2009, the end of a day during which elections were held in several states around America (including New York, New Jersey and Virginia), largely for governors and mayors and other local officials, an off-year election – not to be confused with mid-term races held half-way through a President’s term and, as a rule, it’s senators and Congressional representatives whose careers are on the line.

In today’s elections, the Democrats won some, the Republicans won some, and the media and press pundits are already blathering about what it all means: was this a referendum on President Obama and is he winning or losing?, what does this posit for 2010 and 2012?, all the political horse race shit that has nothing to do with people’s real lives, and which, for decades, has pushed millions out of the arena of civic and political concern.

But tonight was also the debut of HBO’s new documentary, By the People: The Election of Barack Obama, about his historic campaign for the presidency and his election as the first African-American President in 2008. Although, I’m sad to say, it doesn’t tell us anything about him that we don’t already know, it is a well-crafted, important reminder of the sense of energy, faith, optimism, racial dignity, Liberal decency, and immeasurable enthusiasm that accompanied Obama’s campaign and its milestone victory.

With a combination of old-school, beat-the-bushes campaigning and an unprecedentedly sophisticated use of new and established media, Barack Obama succeeded in bringing millions of previously disenchanted, disinterested youth into the political fold, and he gave aging Lefties a sense of we-the-people-déjà vu that we had long ago stopped waiting for.

Of course, the campaign nearly exploded the heads of numerous Republicans, Conservatives, and Vehemently White Americans (you’ll notice I didn’t say racist, because heaven forbid that I or anyone should imply that race was an issue in the campaign and continues to be an issue in Mr. Obama’s presidency…). But Obama’s campaign battle cries: “Change You Can Believe In,” “Yes We Can,” “The Audacity of Hope,” “We Are the Ones We’ve Been Waiting For” and, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., “The Urgency of Now,” drowned out the Doubting Bubbas, as well as the frightened, the reserved, the complacent. He won. And those of us who supported him believed that he and we would change the world. So how did we go from “hepped up and ready to go” to hemmed in and not doing much?

Before I say any more, I want to state that right up until Hillary Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination to Obama and gave him her full-throated support, she was my candidate. I didn’t adore her. She didn’t inspire me. I believed she was a true politician (with many of the negative implications that word often carries) who knew how to play with the Big Boys on their turf and give them a run for their money. I believed her balls were as big as theirs, and that her moxie, that “woman element” which set her apart from the pack, added the thrill of another kind of history-making election to what was an essentially pragmatic choice.

I didn’t want to believe in Barack Obama. I had had my political heart broken too many times already. I didn’t want to hope, didn’t want to join The Movement, didn’t want to drink the joy-laced kool aid. I felt I knew what I could expect from Hillary: competent governance, follow-through on a few core issues, a particular dedication to women’s rights, and the frequently-sage private counsel of her husband, the former President.

But it wasn’t to be. Because a huge population of disparate people, many of them leading hard lives, believed they had found a man who could and would change the world – for the radically, differently better. And in the time between the Democratic Convention and Election Day, I found myself caught up in the hope and excitement. Even when the greedy cowards of Wall Street and the financial industry sent the country (and much of the world) tumbling down the economic rabbit hole, I kept faith with Obama.

He was cool. He was commanding. He seemed ready, willing and able to take on awesome problems that hadn’t even been on the table until the last days of the campaign. I thought he was trying to make peace with an intractable enemy and that this was a good thing. I thought he was getting a raw, hateful deal from the opposition. I thought the President was splendid during his first 100 days, and I still had hope. And I thought a lot of his problems were coming from the Democrats, who were (and still are) doing an unfortunately effective imitation of Monty Python’s “Ministry of Silly Walks.”

But now it’s a year since the election and just a few months short of that since Obama took office. And while I like some of the things he’s said and done, I’m rocked and shocked by his overall performance and stunned that nobody around him seems to be reminding him that when you’ve got the power you should USE IT!

Former President Lyndon Johnson, who, it turns out, was one of the best, most innovative and truly socially-caring presidents of the 20th century along with FDR, was completely tainted by the Vietnam War, which basically killed Johnson’s Great Society along with hundreds of thousands of people. I fear Afghanistan can do the same thing to Obama – except that what Obama’s ultimate legacy will be is now a mondo question mark, because he’s not behaving like the Nouveau President we were sure he would be.

I know the Right genuinely believe he’s a Socialist, but to those of us who thought he would be a come-out-fighting Liberal, he’s behaving like a Centrist wimp. He’s made a mess of health care reform, allowing Congress to craft a sloppy 1,900-page bill that, among other things, betrays women, and which is not likely to provide the service and security we as a nation were promised. I don’t know what the hell he’s doing about the economy except giving aid and comfort to the enemy (Wall Street and the banks) while millions of ordinary people are losing jobs and homes faster than a middle-aged man shedding hair. He’s talked a good game to the LGBT community, but he hasn’t actually done squat.

Indeed, all of the messes and injustices and expenses that Bush left him have only been exacerbated; he can’t control his own party; and he’s spent immeasurable political capital trying to achieve bipartisanship with people who hate him at the expense of real change and genuine relief for the people who still love and support him, even though we’re deeply distraught, confused and disappointed.

As was said about the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz, who was revealed to be a fake, “he’s not a bad man, he’s just a very poor wizard.” Maybe Obama sincerely wanted the change he inspired us to believe in and just doesn’t know how to do it. Maybe he conned us. At this point, we can’t tell. Emotionally, I would prefer incompetence to deception, but only the future will tell.

Mr. President, my advice, my request, my heartfelt plea, is that you stop playing nice and start playing hardball. Use your power, throw your weight around, and force those fractious Dems to get in line. Be a great one-term President rather than a mediocre two-termer. Remember who your friends are. During the campaign, you told us it wasn’t about you, it was about us. Well, now it is about you. So, whataya gonna do about it? And when? Because we really are in the midst of the Urgency of Now.

This article was first published on Blogcritics earlier today.

Health Care Reform: WTF?!

It’s beginning to look like not even a semblance of public health care will be part of the ultimate structure of health care reform. I expect self-serving obstructionism from the Republicans. But I feel betrayed by what I can only view as the cowardice of the Democrats, from the president on down.

Before President Dubya took us into the Iraq War for no legitimate or sensible reason, literally multi-millions of people protested in the US and around the world on the same day, but Bush didn’t flinch. He was abandoned by most of the world community and was only able to assemble an international military coalition of the D-List, but he went right ahead. And in the course of his two terms, he managed to set American democracy back by centuries, nearly nullified the Bill of Rights, sunk us into unprecedented debt, and laid the foundation for the global economic crisis by lessening regulations/ restrictions on everything but the American people. And he got away with it.

But now, the Democrats can’t manage to zip their pants up in unison, let alone forge ahead with radical, necessary, health care reform – and there are a dozen other equally-enormous issues they haven’t had a chance to run away from yet. They’ve allowed themselves to be defeated by a series of well orchestrated Town Hall protests, a well-funded media scare campaign, the inevitable objections and dirty tricks of Republican colleagues (including MySpace rants by the Wicked Witch of the North), and, I assume, their fear that they won’t be elected again if they dare to try to use the power they won.

It bears remembering that it was after the Clinton health care reform efforts failed that American medicine was turned into an HMO system designed by the insurance companies to protect themselves and cut their losses. What do we think they’ll do now that they’ve seen they’re still more powerful than the government and the will of the majority of the people? Why won't the Democrats unite, then stand their ground? Why have they allowed ignorance, lies, and relatively modest resistance to beat them even before they’ve really begun? Why hasn’t their media campaign been as large and hard-hitting as the opposition’s? Why did the president leave it to Congress to put together that huge, sloppy, unintelligible bill? And if we can’t get the change we were promised now, when will it ever be possible?

Barack Obama needs to have an epiphany, an essentially politically suicidal determination to do what has to be done. He should call yet another press conference and say this:

“We are the only country in the world where health care is a business instead of a service and I’m going to stop that, because that’s what I was sent here to do. You – politicians and the public alike – have been reciting a string of terms – socialized medicine, death panels, all kinds of crap – and you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You are putting your trust in the insurance and pharmaceutical companies instead of your own government. You are confusing competition with democracy and putting the profit of the health care industrial complex ahead of your own best interest.

“So, it stops now. I’m putting forth a government-run, non-profit health care system that will serve everybody and cost far less than it does now – essentially Medicare for everyone, but an updated, improved Medicare. I’m going to put the insurance companies out of business. I’m going to make the drug companies toe the line, and if they don’t, I’ll put them out of business, too. And I will smash any Democrat who doesn’t back me up. Pretend I’m a white Republican and just get in line.

“America, if you don’t like what I’m doing, you can vote me out in 2012. But so long as I’m here, I’m going to do what I know is right – just like my predecessor, who believed he was a messenger from God. I’m going to drag this country into the 21st century before we fall so far down it’ll make the Fall of Rome look like a holiday sale at Wal-Mart.

“I won’t be stopped by your outdated Cold War mentality. You can call me a Socialist or Daffy Duck, I don’t give a damn. I was handed a platter of crap when I came into office and none of the “public servants” on either side of the aisle have done anything but get in my way. I’ve had it with all of you. A big change is coming and if you don’t like it, tough! I’m the president, we’re in trouble, and I don’t care what you think or what you say. Any questions?”

In Conclusion

I can hardly believe that The Campaign Without End will (hopefully) end tomorrow, and I believe it will be a happy ending and we’ll have President Obama replacing President Unforgivable. However, having endured this entire campaign as a concerned and participatory citizen, there are a few things I’d like to say about the electoral process before I return my attention to other matters.

Despite the shortcomings, inequities and peculiarities of this campaign – and there were many – it was a blessing. It inspired America to think and talk about politics again, and brought many new and previously disenfranchised citizens into the political fold. It forced us as a nation to start talking about racism, sexism, and economic disparity, and it put our most pressing national concerns – the economy, education, the Iraq War, oil dependency, the environment, health care, and the Big Three entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) – squarely on the table. Issues such as civil and human rights, Constitutional protections, poverty, drugs, crime, and immigration, among them, got little or no direct attention, but hey, the campaign was only two years long, they couldn’t cover everything. The simple facts of Obama, Clinton, and even Palin, as major candidates, made history; we’ve turned a page and that’s a good thing. And of course, this campaign was the first to reflect the full power of the Internet as a major new medium, one that promoted enormous civic involvement by individuals and permitted the dissemination of much more information than ever before.

That said, it behooves us to acknowledge and discuss now, before we get lost in the happy haze of a new beginning, the problems of the campaign. It was ridiculously, exhaustingly, unproductively too long, and outrageously too expensive. The debates, from the primaries to the final matches in October, were awful; they weren’t debates at all, they were bad press conferences. The campaign also brought into shocking relief just how much politics is a team sport in this country, and to what extent party loyalty impedes truly bipartisan, cooperative governance. It also highlighted the simplistic, narrow vision that many Americans have about their country and themselves; if we keep thinking we’re The Greatest Country in the World, how can we improve and grow?

Media coverage, particularly on TV and in tabloid newspapers, should be roundly chastised for continuing to shape American politics as a horse race, a popularity contest, an opportunity for scandal, and for relentlessly focusing on irrelevant minutia. By the end of this week, they’ll already be discussing, in earnest, the 2012 presidential election, which is a huge public disservice (and should be punishable by death…). Since we as a culture are increasingly driven by information technology, we as a people must start to demand grown-up, nuanced, significant media coverage of all news, especially politics.

And with Election Day now just hours away, it’s time for us to fully consider the value of eliminating the electoral college so that every vote really does count, instead of millions of votes being rendered almost irrelevant, depending on what state one lives and votes in. We also must address the chaotic condition of the voting process, from convoluted registration procedures to dysfunctional voting equipment; The Greatest Country in the World shouldn’t have such a difficult time casting and counting electoral votes.

It is my heartfelt wish that before the next presidential election we can address the many problems just cited. Meanwhile, I’m looking forward to true leadership and responsible, innovative and supportive public policy. We survived this campaign. We’ve earned it.

The New Right Stuff

Over the past couple of weeks, in observing the swirl of fright-ening current events and the next-to-final throes of The Campaign Without End, then watching last night’s third and last presidential debate, I’ve found myself reflecting on the nature of intelligence, character and experience, and what exactly it takes to make someone fit to lead. Both John McCain and Barack Obama are smart men. But which of them also has the vision, temperament, and natural talent for leadership that ideally one should have in order to be president?

Since the conventions, both men have had ample opportunity to show their stuff to the people, and they have. McCain has shown that he is old-fashioned and uncreative in his thinking, mean-spirited in his attitudes, loose with the truth, erratic in his behavior, and shockingly self-serving in his ambition as evidenced by his selection of the ignorant and wholly unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate. In reassuring contrast, Obama has exhibited a clear understanding of 21st century realities, innovative ideas, graciousness, civility, straightforwardness, calm under pressure, and a willingness to properly balance personal ambition with a genuine desire for public service.

But even more important, Obama exhibits high levels of “emotional intelligence” and “cultural literacy.” Daniel Goleman’s 1995 bestseller, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, refreshingly introduced the notion that the qualities of social interaction and self-knowledge, including the ability to empathize, delay gratification, and interpret non-verbal social cues, were as essential to personal success as intellectual intelligence. E.D. Hirsch, in his captivating 1987 reference book, Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, provided the first volume in a string of revisions over the years that list the facts and ideas related to world history & geography, technology, science, language, the arts, religion, mythology and folklore that someone who regards himself as literate needs to know. One only needs to look at George W. Bush to recognize an essentially homicidal lack of emotional intelligence and cultural literacy. John McCain may not be George Bush - but he, too, lacks these important qualities. (Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is George Bush.)

When McCain talks about “winning” in Iraq, he shows a scary lack of understanding that today’s wars (and tomorrow’s) will not be waged and won in traditional military terms, that today’s enemies are not other nations so much as rogue leaders and cults with zealous determination and considerable technological and financial resources; we need smarts, self-control, diplomacy, and a little sophisticated covert operation to address these dangers. When McCain talks about “spreading the wealth” and “class warfare” in disparaging terms, he reveals a dangerous ignorance of the economic imbalances that threaten our national existence and security. When McCain talks about giving people the “choice” to get the health care they want without government interference, he ignores the fact that most people are trapped in HMOs and other profit-making health service structures that long ago robbed patients of meaningful choices and quality care. When McCain rails against taxes and “big government,” he shows a total lack of understanding of how people need to support a government that really and truly supports them. And when he goes into his anti-abortion spiel, well…

Barack Obama is a young man with young ideas. He understands new media. He connects with young adults. He is dedicated to discussion and diplomacy. He has a personal, spiritual foundation that doesn’t deny scientific fact or attempt to control people’s personal behavior. He believes in both personal responsibility and governmental protections. He understands cultures other than his own. He’s a feminist. He supports affordable, accessible education, public education. He’s not afraid to say “I don’t know” or to take counsel and advice from other smart people. He understands the difference between coming from love or fear, and knows that working from fear is dangerous, not insurance against danger. He’s got a cool head and a warm heart. And he’s got Joe Biden watching his back, instead of Annie Oakley. We need this guy and we need him bad.

Please, Keep Your Eyes on the Prize

I’m delighted that Hillary Clinton won the Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island primaries this week, and the best-possible outcome (in my view) would be that Hillary win the nomination – fair, square and without a hint of back-room maneuvering. But Barack Obama has hardly become the loser in this ongoing fight. And now that they’re on an equal footing in the race, they each have the ability and the opportunity to make this a process to be proud of – or to go old-school political and connive their way to the nomination. Handled poorly (which is to say, backhanded), winning could result in great losses for America at a critical time.

America deserves better than Dubya Redux with a Presidential win by John McCain, who, although smarter and I think a far more decent man than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is not what this country needs going forward. We need someone who will end the war in Iraq, not justify it; someone who will craft universal health care, not get around it; heal the sickly economy, not just preserve the current safe-haven for the few; find solutions for the mortgage and bankruptcy crises, not let them run their free-market course to total disaster; protect a woman’s right to choose and repair the corrupted separation of Church and State, rather than further this insult to democracy. In short, we need what used to be called A Democrat, before Democrat came to mean “he who sits impotently by while the Republicans run the country into the ground.”

Our election process is already compromised by bad voting equipment and everything from incompetence to outright fraud. Add to that the troubling inequities wrought by the continuation of the Electoral College, and, the completely undemocratic power of the so-called super-delegates, and it’s not hard to understand why so many people have stopped participating in this vital activity of citizenship. But now we have two promising candidates – candidates who’ve promised that this is a whole new ballgame: open, honest, in The People’s Best Interest. Yet we can’t expect Presidential behavior that rises above the fray of self-service if our prospective candidates resort to Any Means Necessary to secure the nomination.

I’m frankly less concerned right now about whether it’s Clinton or Obama who wins the day than I am that their infighting will get so hot and so low that Denver 2008 will make Chicago 1968 look like a summer picnic – and give McCain a virtually unfettered path to the White House. Please, Hillary and Barack, remember that this election is bigger than either of you and you both owe us the united party you promised us. Anything less and we all lose.

The Tortoise and the Hare

Things aren’t looking too good for Hillary Clinton. I don’t believe that all is lost quite yet; stranger things have happened in American politics (and Hillary’s own life) and the lady may still win the day. But I think she would do well to take a different tack over the next few weeks in what might be her last opportunity to rescue her presidential candidacy.

I listened hard to Barack Obama on Tuesday night when he was wooing Houston and giving thanks to the people of Wisconsin for his primary win there, and I watched him just as closely. He’s more than a gifted orator, he’s a spellbinding preacher. When he speaks of hope and what can be achieved when people assert their power from the bottom up you can’t help but feel a giddy sense of joy. It’s the same feeling people get when they’re imbued with The Spirit, like at a revival meeting, and Obama is hypnotizing his adoring crowds as he preaches his gospel of The Urgency of Now, promising with conviction that yes, we can make miracles if we get fired up and ready to go. It’s been so long since an American politician spouted dreams and poetry that if you’re not at all touched by him, you must be completely jaded or slightly dead. (Isn’t he what we fans of The West Wing wanted when we fantasized about Martin Sheen – or Jimmy Smits – really being president?)

What can Hillary Clinton, Superwoman perhaps, but mere mortal nonetheless, say or do in the face of the proverbial knight in shining armor? Pitting a pragmatist against an idealist seems like the classic race between the tortoise and the hare. In the fable, the steadfast tortoise is victorious over the splashy, speedy, charismatic hare, because the hare gets over-confident and sloppy. Tenacity triumphs over celebrity. If Hillary is lucky, Barack’s ego may get the better of him, slow him down and reveal his darker side – because bright light always casts a long shadow.

Obama the hare is, astrologically speaking, Leo the Lion. He’s a rock star (geez, how many metaphors can I mix? Wanna metaphor cocktail??) – and if there’s one thing I know, it’s that stars get tripped up when they start believing their publicity. Conversely, Clinton is a Scorpio – passionate, private, devoted to her purpose. Scorpio is the Guardian-Warrior, also known in this transitional, multi-tasking era for women, as Mommy. Can Mommy best the Rock Star? In the past, Hillary has achieved her goals by playing hardball. I don’t think that game will work here.

If I were Hillary, what I’d say to Obama during tonight’s debate is this: I can’t deny the beauty and often the truth of what you say. But being a visionary isn’t what makes one a leader. In order to win big, you have to have lost big. You can’t lead well without having known failure, and without having made tough, sometimes ugly choices. I’ve known failure. I’ve known humiliation. I know what it means to be hated, to be pitied, to be misunderstood. At this age and stage of my life, I’m best equipped to lead, because I have 60 years of life experience. And I lived in the White House for eight years. I know how power works – and how it doesn’t. What will you do when your path is blocked, when forces more numerous and more powerful than you rise up to resist you? What will you do when Congress turns on you, or your cabinet offers conflicting counsel, or the audience for the world stage doesn’t embrace you like the folks back home? If you want the power of the presidency, stop charming the crowds and start addressing the issues. Come down from your pulpit and talk specifics. And while you’re doing that, I’m just gonna keep on moving down the road…

Why Can’t We Talk About Race and Gender?

I do realize that I probably don’t have my finger on the pulse of the nation, that I’m often out of sync with prevailing attitudes, however, is it just me, or is there not something odd about America entertaining its first viable black and female presidential candidates, but they don’t want to talk about race or gender and we (the public, the media, whoever) aren’t supposed to either. Why? I understand that Obama wants to be viewed as a candidate, not the blackcandidate, and that similarly, Clinton rejects being seen as the womancandidate. But given our national history, won’t the first black or woman president bring something distinct and unique to the job, an awareness, sensitivity and (you should excuse me) agenda that white men have generally lacked?

In my ministerial capacity, I’ve conducted two gay commitment ceremonies – but we called them weddings and no one mentioned the word gay; it was a deliberate choice, to emphasize the idea that love is love and no one is served by making distinctions between gay and straight. But the 2008 presidential campaign is not a symbolic ceremony, it’s our national democratic process in action, and whoever becomes president will have to deal with significant issues that are undeniably tied to race, gender or both.

I expect a woman president to be particularly sensitive to issues that have a serious impact on women: preserving the right to choose and ready access to birth control information and products; promoting increased parity in health care, insurance coverage, higher education and employment; addressing domestic violence and rape in a truly meaningful, authoritative way; and both nationally and as a foreign policy priority, confronting sexual slavery, rape as a tactic of war, female genital mutilation, and the dearth of human rights for women reflected in honor killings and other culturally entrenched forms of subjugation.

Likewise, I expect a black president to be especially attuned to issues that have a serious impact on racial minorities: discrimination in employment, business development and housing; the wildly disproportionate number of prisoners of color; outrageous levels of poverty; the crippling impact of hard drugs and family instability in communities of color; the massive education problem; and the disturbing influence of “ghetto culture” music and mindset that devalues learning and upward mobility.

Indeed, I would like to see any president, of any race or either gender, address all of the pressing problems listed above. And at this historic juncture, isn’t it legitimate, hell, imperative, that unprecedented candidates confront long-ignored social issues with status-quo-disrupting determination? I would like to hear Hillary Clinton say that women and children in America (and around the world) can depend on her being a consistent advocate on their behalf. I’d like to hear Barack Obama say that on his watch, the American racial divide will be bridged and Africa will no longer be the continent left behind. I dearly want both of them to initiate a much-needed national dialogue on race and gender – but first, they have to be willing to say the words.

Why I’m For Hillary - Take 2

There was a moment Thurs- day night, watching Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama standing together on the stage of the Kodak Theatre in L.A. before their first one-on-one debate, that my eyes started to water and I thought: I wish my parents had lived to see this. A black man and a woman, both in serious contention for the Democratic presidential nomination and, God willing, one of them will actually be elected. No matter what happens now, that was an historic and quite magnificent moment.

I think Obama is a sincere idealist. He says the kinds of things I’ve longed to hear a politician say for decades: that he and we can successfully work together to effect dramatic change in America; that we, as a people, must get back on the path to empathy and service to one another; that as a nation, we must reject fear, anger and revenge in favor of love, forgiveness and reconciliation. If he becomes the Democratic candidate, I won’t be displeased and I will happily vote for him.

But I’m for Clinton because I believe she is a sincere pragmatist, and as such, can get more done than a visionary. Those 35 years of experience she keeps talking about have taught her how to play the political game, have shown her where a few of the bodies are buried, and have given her hide the texture and strength of a buffalo. I think she has the intellect and skill to be a very effective president, and I believe she has deep and genuine emotions, especially where children and women are concerned. I also like the idea that Bill will be with her, because despite his recent heavy-handed behavior in his wife’s defense, I think he’ll provide good counsel and be a valuable ambassador/diplomat around the world on her behalf. I also think he’ll create a gracious, confident, generous protocol for a future First Gentleman. I readily admit that I’d like to see a woman president and I think Hillary is the right woman at the right time to crack that White House glass ceiling.

Conversely, I fear that Obama is sadly naive. I don’t believe he will ever be allowed to do what he wants to do, despite whatever mandate he may receive from the young people he’s brought into the political process with his nouveau 60s enthusiasm. Even if I were willing to surrender to Obama’s seductive hopefulness, I don’t believe he can transform our entrenched system. Part of what I like about Hillary is that she can hold her own in the now-non-smoking back rooms of politics, and she knows they’re not going away anytime soon.

Yes, it distresses me that Hillary is a vitriol magnet. I don’t think any political woman since Eleanor Roosevelt has engendered such visceral hatred. Maybe the upside is that some of these ignorant younger women who think the power of sexism went out with stockings and garters will see that it is still an integral part of the underpinnings of this culture – and gets real ugly when it picks up the scent of a super-smart, influential woman heading for significant power. In any case, I know she can handle it, because she already has.

I find it interesting and revealing that Clinton is doing better with blue collar folks than Obama. I think it shows they believe she can solve problems and effect realistic change that will genuinely, actually, improve their lives. On the other hand, Obama has enchanted the young and the more affluent – people who can still afford dreams. I guess my age is showing in my inability, perhaps unwillingness, to get on another bandwagon, to once again embrace the romance of potential transformation. But in the course of my years, I’ve seen the leading transformers of my time literally murdered by frightened opposition. Hillary doesn’t exactly inspire me, but she encourages me; I feel sure about what she can do.

In the best of all possible worlds, Hillary will get the nomination and Barack will be smart enough, and big enough, to be her running mate and make his agenda a functional part of her administration. Ideally, we would have eight years of Clinton followed by eight years of Obama. Maybe by then, we’ll be able to afford a dreamer.

Why I'm For Hillary - Take 1

The great American poet, Maya Angelou, has written a prose-poem in support of Hillary Clinton. At least for the moment, what more need I say...

State Package for Hillary Clinton

by Maya Angelou

(published by The London Observer)

You may write me down in history

With your bitter, twisted lies,

You may tread me in the very dirt

But still, like dust, I'll rise.

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits' end, but she has always risen, always risen, don't forget she has always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends.

Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on her. There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you're born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female.

But to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies. Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to be what it can become.

She declares she wants to see more smiles in the family, more courtesies between men and women, more honesty in the marketplace. She is the prayer of every woman and man who longs for fair play, healthy families, good schools, and a balanced economy.

She means to rise.

Don't give up on Hillary. In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country the wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety and without crippling fear.

Rise, Hillary.

Rise.

Primary Concerns

Sort of in preparation for the Iowa Presidential Primary on Thursday (January 3rd), I’ve watched three political films in the past few days: the classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the 90s’ under-appreciated Primary Colors (both favorites that I’ve seen many times) and The Good Shepherd, last year’s acclaimed fictional bio-pic about the CIA (which I found leaden and confusing, but never mind). I passed up another favorite, Wag the Dog, because it was on commercial television and snippets of film interrupted by innumerable quick-cut commercials make me feel like I’m having an epileptic seizure.

The point is, both political pop culture and actual politics are filled with unforgettable examples of idealism, cynicism, cronyism, shameless manipulation of the voting public and genuine efforts to serve the public good, efforts usually thwarted by the steamroller muscle of high-stakes politics. As always, the media treat political campaigns like horse races, as if there were nothing crucial at stake and they have no obligation to prompt serious discourse about critical social issues.

And more than half the public tunes out the entire process the way I manage to avoid absolutely everything about sports. Indeed, it is this high-octane blend of public ignorance and indifference that has helped degrade the political process for years and, most recently, gave us two terms of George Dubya that have literally run this country into the ground. In some ways, I can’t blame my fellow citizens for opting out of this charade, especially since the 2008 campaign is shaping up as interminable, stiff, phony and just plain stupid. Unfortunately, it matters very much who becomes our next president and how we can try to repair the incalculable damage of the Bush years.

Much will be made of who wins and who loses in Iowa, even if there are no decisive winners and even though Iowa will be a dim memory come June. There will be many more primaries leading up to the pointless, staged, inordinately expensive conventions this summer, and by November, those of us who have not been driven into mental institutions by the campaign will do our best to force all the red and blue shit to hit the fan (as much as the electoral college will allow).

It pisses me off that there’s been no opportunity to reflect on the significance, and triumph, of the country’s first genuine, viable, woman and black candidates. It appalls me that despite the 122,397 “debates” that have already been held, there has been no in depth, meaningful discussion of real issues. It severely troubles me that all of the candidates on both sides of the political fence are competing for each other’s existing constituencies instead of courting the millions of potential voters who are completely disengaged from the political process. It infuriates me that the major TV networks, who literally had their broadcast spectrums bestowed on them as gifts decades ago, and who all now have multiple channels under their digitized, high-definition belts, are not required by law to run political ads pro bono (which would hugely reduce the costs of campaigning, since most of the candidates’ war chests are spent on media).

It outrages me that the Democrats don’t have the balls to reclaim their traditional political niche as the progressive, liberal champion of the middle- and working-class and the poor, and, that the Republicans are equally ball-less in not turning their backs on the religious right and reclaiming their traditional niche as fiscal conservatives and social libertarians.

Most of all, I am bitterly disappointed that the post-O.J. Simpson sensationalist broadcast and print media have failed to demonstrate the courage and insight to recognize that they can no longer cover politics as if it were a cross between Survivor, American Idol and Jerry Springer. We can no longer afford bullshit, bread-and-circuses, jingo journalism.

Here in the first decade of the 21st century, our reality has been profoundly altered by 9/11 and terrorism; the radical evolution and expansion of television; and the birth and growth of the Internet, which has created unprecedented opportunities for social communication and interactive involvement in the processes that govern our lives. We are contending with unimagined climate change, unspeakable national debt, a dangerous merging of church and state, a yawning gap between the rich and everyone else, crises in health care, education and employment that are reshaping the national profile, the threat of recession and increased inflation, and the inability to relax with a cigarette in a coffee shop or bar. These are perilous times.

I hope Hillary wins in Iowa. It’s not much, but it’s a start.

Mirror, Mirror

This photo of Hillary Clinton was recently posted on the right-leaning Drudge Report blog, ostensibly to illustrate the toll the campaign is taking on the Senator – but I don’t think I’m paranoid in believing it was also a deliberate, cheap shot (as in: see how old and ugly she is?? – please!). That might have been the end of the story, but the picture motivated a controversial radio monologue by Rush Limbaugh, which has prompted mucho buzz on blogs across the land. On those sites where Clinton is routinely called Shrillary and Her Thighness, the posts have ranged from really mean to absolutely hateful. In blue-state territory, the tables have been turned on Rush with the bloggers assailing his looks (English translation: fat! fat! fat!). My head is throbbing from the idea that I’m about to defend Limbaugh, but even though he’s a mega-conservative asshole, he’s also a fat, middle-aged man who knows what it’s like to be reviled for his appearance. So, in fairness, it's important to note that what he said is that we are a beauty- and youth-obsessed culture; he cited the innumerable ways that women, especially, suffer in our society in this regard; and he posed a timely, albeit rude, question about the appeal and presidential electability of Hillary Clinton, to wit: “Does Our Looks-Obsessed Culture Want to Stare at an Aging Woman?” (For the transcript of RL’s remarks, click here.)

Limbaugh aside, as we approach the first really plausible candidacy of a woman for president, it is not unreasonable to address the issue of her age and looks, because we are a beauty- and youth-obsessed culture and there are registered voters who will actually take her looks into consideration when making their voting decision. I would scoff derisively at this, except I remember that back in 1960, people who watched the televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon regarded the young, handsome Kennedy the winner, while those who listened to it on radio (and therefore didn’t see the 5-0-clock shadow move across Nixon’s grimacing, sweaty face) believed Tricky Dick had won.

Jackie Kennedy set the exalted standard for White House beauty and every First Lady since has been assessed in dim comparison, including Hillary, who developed a rep for never quite figuring out what to do with her hair and wearing charmless outfits that didn’t flatter her chunky legs. When she ran for the Senate, she was teased mercilessly about her black pantsuit uniform, and from the moment she threw her pill-box hat into the presidential ring, she hasn’t made a single stylish move, according to the ever-watchful fashionistas.

Needless to say, this is all very irritating – and alarming. Edwards was taken to task for his $400 haircut, but that was about economics and class, not style. Nobody says boo about the looks and couture of the men in the race, which is as it should be. Yet when it comes to Hillary, the double-standard waves its freak-flag high. Every facial wrinkle and fly-away hair is occasion for nasty comment. But this most recent assault by the blog-posting public is really beyond the pale, because it’s not gossipy nit-picking about cleavage or eye shadow color, it’s an outright assertion that Hillary is too old and ugly to be president, which is positively outrageous!

In my none-too-humble opinion, 60 isn’t too old for anything, let alone national leadership, and while Hillary may not be a classic beauty, ugly is not an apt or reasonable description of her. Ugly isn’t about being fair of face or not, it’s about being hateful, mean, violent, envious, vindictive, and any other kind of relentless awfulness of character and spirit. To not support Hillary Clinton because you disagree with her politics or even dislike her seemingly-cold personality is one thing. But to rake the woman over the coals because she isn’t young and pretty is breathtakingly shallow and really frightening!

Limbaugh said the wildly superficial standards of Hollywood and television have brought us to this sorry juncture and he is correct. But is it really possible that we as a nation have our Botoxed heads so far up our buff, toned asses that we can’t tell the difference between electing a president and selecting America’s Next Top Model? Are we so ignorant, so superficial, and so out of touch with genuine human values and social imperatives that we are unable to make sober political decisions? Have we learned nothing from nearly eight years of George W. Bush – who, by the way, bears a striking resemblance to the moronic Alfred E. Newman of Mad Magazine fame. When did it become okay to look stupid, but not old? Whether or not Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic candidate and, subsequently, President of the United States, one can only pray that our decision will be based on substance instead of fluff – unless, of course, we really do think Jennifer Love-Hewitt is the right man for the job.