Two Firsts (by Jim Wallis)
The fact that an African American and a woman each ran so strongly in the long primary season of this election year speaks very well of the country. Having two “firsts” competing for the presidency, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, makes this a very historic political year. But it was perhaps unfortunate that the two firsts ended up running against each other. After a hard-fought campaign, there inevitably remain some hard feelings among the supporters of both candidates, but especially among many women, who were the core of Clinton’s campaign.
Many of them feel she was treated badly by the press, with many instances of overtly sexist attitudes and commentaries that would never have been directed at another male candidate. I, for one, think they are right -- there were many media comments about Senator Clinton that were sexist and that would never have been used against a man. Indeed, there are often regular comments in the media about women that would simply not be acceptable if similar things were said about men or even ethnic minorities. As a culture, sexist assumptions, attitudes, and language are still far too acceptable to us.
Race is a factor in this political year too, and will undoubtedly appear in the fall campaign. The fact is that we were not going to transcend the realities of either race or gender in this election year because the demons are simply too great and run too deep in our society. But the fact that an African American and a woman did so well, despite the racism and sexism that is still with us in America, is a cause for grateful celebration. And now, as many have said, it’s time for some healing.
While I agree with those who saw sexism in the primary political coverage, I also agree with most political commentators who don’t think it was the ultimate reason Senator Clinton came short of becoming the Democratic Party nominee. I won’t rehearse the now commonly agreed-upon analysis of some of the Clinton campaign’s mistakes and miscalculations or how the Obama campaign ran a little smarter strategy, but, clearly, several strategic considerations were decisive factors.
It is also clear that this political year will be a “change” election. All the candidates, in both parties, ended up running on the country’s clear desire for a change in direction after eight years of the Bush administration. Barack Obama made change the core of his message, and John McCain has been a beneficiary of that same mood in the Republican Party. And while Hillary Clinton was also clearly a change candidate, as the first woman with a real chance to become president, she was still a Clinton, which also made her a “restoration” candidate as well as a change candidate. That ultimately hurt her this election year.
But after her gracious and magnanimous speech endorsing Barack Obama this weekend, the tremendous and historical accomplishments of her presidential campaign are clear for all to see and celebrate. Regardless of whether everyone agrees with her positions on every issue or whether they liked all of her campaign tactics, a clear breakthrough for women in America has taken place. It will now be much more acceptable, possible, and “normal” for women to compete for every political office in the land, and that fact will open up even more doors for women in virtually every area of public life and leadership in this country. And for that, we all have a great deal to thank Hillary Clinton and her loyal supporters for. Marie Wilson, founder and president of the White House Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that aims to advance women's leadership, wrote this weekend in The Washington Post about
this country's next generation of female leaders -- women of all ages and persuasions who have been searching for the means and encouragement to step into positions of leadership in their communities; women of all political affiliations who thank Hillary Clinton for making the impossible finally appear possible.
Many moving things have been said about how so many little girls now believe that they can be anything they want to be because of Clinton’s impressive campaign. But I want to also point out the impact on little boys, like my own two young sons. They have grown up with a mom as a priest, an ordained clergywoman who they have often seen preaching, speaking, presiding over the Eucharist, and doing weddings and baptisms. The leadership role of women in the church is simply normal and expected for them—it’s what mom does. Clinton’s presidential bid has had a very similar effect on both of them.
My 9-year-old son, Luke, considers Hillary a “friend,” having met her at a New Year’s weekend retreat that both of our families attended. Hillary very graciously sends him little personal notes to congratulate him on his Little League baseball successes. It's a wonderful gesture that utterly defies the harsh commentaries on her style that she sadly so often receives. At the CNN candidate forum on faith, values, and poverty that Sojourners co-sponsored last June, Luke got to meet her again and told the senator privately, “Hillary, I can’t vote, but if I could, I would vote for you.” She beamed the biggest smile back to my son and said, “Oh Luke, that means so much to me!” Luke has remained totally faithful to Hillary during the primary political season, proudly wearing a Clinton button on his safety patrol belt, and was one of her disappointed supporters when she finally had to concede. Five-year-old Jack voted just the way his big brother did in their D.C. public school primary, resisting the Obama landslide.
My boys, like lots of little girls and boys, now believe that a woman running for president is normal, possible, and to be expected, as they do for an African-American candidate. Luke is looking forward to the day when a black woman will be able to run. “Wouldn’t that be cool, Dad?” he says. It surely would, and for that we have both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to thank.
Add to:
Category: Elections, Feminism
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Is sexism real? Yes, it's always real. Was it what brought Hillary down? No not even close. Is there a double standard? Yes, it's true for both major democratic candidates. Unfortunately both share the burden for our country's sins. This would be true if Republicans had nominated a black man and a white woman. (I know I snickered at that too.) Republicans will not nominate a white woman or a black man. It's just not going to happen. It would be interesting if they did.
Hillary failed in large part because of Hillary and in the end she has to face that. I think it is extremely naive to think that gender stopped that woman. She is too strong for that.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 10, 2008 5:07 PM
There is nothing about Hillary's personality that would have allowed her to be taken down. I met her, she is lovely, I don't know why people always diss her so badly. I attribute it to prejudice against Bill Clinton, in large part due to the Arkansas Project of Richard Mellon Scaife, which sought to ruin the Clinton presidency. And just about succeeded.
Posted by: Wendy | June 10, 2008 5:22 PM
I thought SNL said it best about Hillary and Obama.
Roger
Posted by: roger | June 10, 2008 6:16 PM
Hillary was a great first choice for the democrats to run for President. she was by far greater than the prior choice of a Black (Jesse Jackson. What she has done has been to open the doors for other women to run and believe that they can win the highest office in the land.
If the Republicans can find someone of equal timber to run, they can also hold the torch. After all, all the women who have lead other countries highest offices have been conservatives from Goldi Miur to Thatcher. The problem in the past has been that the GOP has been a Boy's Club and likes its women to be Stepford wives. They hate Hillary Clinton not because she's a Democrat but because she is a strong, independent and spirited person who is not a man. (pardon my misspelling, I'm not as smart as MY wife.)
Posted by: Paul | June 10, 2008 7:21 PM
Jim, what would be really wonderful is if a Black woman or a gay man or an atheist or a man who used to get notes from Hillary Clinton in childhood could run for President of the United States and no one even noticed the label.
Posted by: Robert | June 11, 2008 12:50 AM
It wasn't Hillary's womanity that turned me off. In business when someone lacks compassion in favor of profit and calls it "good business", I disagree. Profit is a side effect; not master of the game. When people lie, (our mothers never called it miss speaking), or build themselves up by tearing others down unfairly, and it's called, "just politics" I disagree. Hillary had only to be herself, rather than playing politics like the old white guys we're used to seeing in DC.
Posted by: Barbara | June 11, 2008 5:43 AM
If Hillary Clinton, or any woman running for U.S. president, had credentials as slim as those of Barack Obama, she never would have received any credibility.
Posted by: judithod | June 11, 2008 5:41 PM
Dear Jim:
Hillary and Barack indeed did make history this year. It is so wonderful that kids take this as "normal". Perhaps our generation will be the last that looks at gender and race as "hinderances" rather than who that person is. I'm so glad your kids got to meet Hillary. She's a great person and doesn't deserve all the negatives. Yeah, she made mistakes but who doesn't? Now, we have to make sure that the real change that our country needs happens!
Posted by: Debbie Lackowitz | June 11, 2008 6:17 PM
Jim:
I wish the whole nation had the sense your kids have. And I cannot express how deeply I mean that.
Posted by: frankie | June 11, 2008 6:55 PM
"If Hillary Clinton, or any woman running for U.S. president, had credentials as slim as those of Barack Obama, she never would have received any credibility."
I don't buy that for a second. For one thing there are freshman female senators that take the national spotlight. Take Claire McCaskill for instance if she had wanted to run I think she would have done quite well.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 11, 2008 6:56 PM
Why are so many people acting as if Hillary Clinton is the first woman that ever ran for President? Where was everyone four years ago when Carole Mosely-Braun made her run? NOW endorsed her; most women ignored her. Yet Clinton and Mosely-Braun ran for President after only one term in the Senate.
Sorry to sound churlish, but color wouldn't have anything to do with that, would it?
Posted by: I and I | June 11, 2008 11:59 PM
Above should read "yet BOTH Clinton and Mosely-Braun ran after only one term in the Senate."
Posted by: I and I | June 12, 2008 12:01 AM
Hi all,
The nomination was Hillary's to lose, By all objective accounts, long before Mr Obama came on the scene. According to a recent issue of 'The Economist' Hillary didn't know what hit her!
I believe that is a very fair appreciation of Barack Obama's political skills, which have, at least for now, proven much more valuable than Hillary's 'experience'.
As an African, used to old men (the 'men' is not generic) asking youthful, but very skillful, politicians to bide their time, that they are 'the leaders of tomorrow', the constant refrain I hear about Obama's lack of experience is disturbing. For all their experience African leaders who have been around 20, 30 years have only made their countries worse, besides 'change' is a word that they cannot understand, yet freely exploit.
In most of Africa (and I suspect America too), we need leaders who have no 'political experience' if that were possible! Lets' have that old 'rule of the people, by the people, for the people' thing (did I get that right?)
All the candidates vying for both parties' nomination for US President in 2008 have/had great qualities, for sure, but there's only one Obama.
To my mind a leader inspires people to share his vision and embrace it as their own. Jesus didn't have any experience to talk about. I am sure you can come up with other examples.
I think Hillary can be gracious and has a very formidable following, but with all due respect, all the experience that she and McCain combined may have is irrelevant to whether they would be better for America and the world than would Obama.
I think the 'world' there is important because America has been blessed by the Lord to lead the world in our time. I have no doubt that the American President should provide global leadership, for better or worse.
Everywhere you look the world wants CHANGE. Just looking at Obama, imagining him as President of America, feels like change already. Black (or white, depending on your prejudice), raised in America and Asia, has 'Muslim' relatives in Africa, is relatively young, like the most of the world's population; technologically savvy.
As the same Economist puts it, "Mrs Clinton built the best fund-raising machine of the 20th century ... But Mr. Obama trumped her by building the best fund-raising machine of the 21st century."
Has he or has he not changed American politics?
However he did that is a pointer to the plausibility of the change that he is promising American voters and explains why Obama is the man that is inspiring people all over the world, from Nairobi in my country, Kenya, to Obama, in Japan.
In a sense his popularity outside America scares me, because I doubt that most Americans much care what the rest of the world thinks, or feels.
Well, I pray that US voters this time around will surprise me (and I trust most of the world) - pleasantly.
Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | June 12, 2008 1:32 AM
Robert, thank you for sharing. A lot of US care what you and the rest of the world think. We aren't as isolated as those that are supposed to represent US portray.
I was thinking sometime back that instead of fear or regret being the forces behind our votes, this time we'll have a chance to vote for a fruit of the Spirit, "Hope", and that it isn't just for US, but the world.
Peace, B
Posted by: Barbara | June 12, 2008 5:52 AM
Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency has brought to mind an exchange I had with my son, many years ago, when he was about 5 years old.
For a variety of reasons, Nicholas found himself growing up in a world where the women of his aquaintance were capable and powerful, stable and consistant. As was to become his trademark style of interpersonal communication, we were in the car and he began his question with the single word, "Mom!" The ritual required only a single word in return to open the floodgates: "Yes."
"Why don't women want to be president?"
I had presence of mind enough to neither laugh nor answer immediately. "Why do you ask?"
"Is there something bad about being President?"
"No; it is a difficult job, and I would not want it, but it is not bad. In much of our country people believe that women can't make choices well enough to be President." (The making choices theme was strong during his early school years.)
"Well, ok. I thought it was so gross that women refused to do it, and I was going to feel sorry for the man who got picked."
I promise you, this is a true story. As it turned out, he also believed that one did not vote 'for' a person to be President, but voted against the person one disliked in order to protect the favoured candidate from the horrors of the job.
Posted by: Elaine Hammond | June 12, 2008 1:22 PM
Forgive me for not wading through all of the comments. I am sure they are well reasoned and to the point. My contribution is thus:
Women and Major/Minorities are often pitted against one another. I saw this at my seminary: A faculty position would open up and, being the striving-for-inclusiveness institution that we were, those usually in the running were a white woman and a person of color. It left constituants in both categories to fight with one another when the bigger issue is getting the dominant (white/male) system to let loose of their power and allow themselves to be equals rather than "better than."
It baffles me that strong Hillary Clinton supporters would even entertain the notion of voting for someone who is not FOR them or disenfranchise themselves.
There may be a day when people can vie for positions and offices heedless of gender or race/ethnicity. It will just be people with varying qualifications getting positions/being voted for because of the best qualifications or platforms. Today doesn't yet seem to be the day.
Posted by: Jan Williams | June 12, 2008 1:41 PM
Here is a random fact that people need to know.
The first white woman to run for president was named Victoria Woodhull and guess who her running mate was. For folks that don't know it was Frederick Douglass. The idea that black men and white women can't work together is ridiculous. We have been working together for over a century and a half. Some of the most influential abolitionists were white women, women like the Grimke sisters. Google them and learn more about our shared history.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 12, 2008 1:52 PM
Unfortunately when people talk about the support that Senate Clinton had among women they seem to be dismissing Black women. It is indeed also unfortunate that race and gender compete because Black women tend not to benefit until Black people benefit. When women gained the right to vote Black women remined largely disenfranchised until Black people were free to vote with the voting rights act passed during the 1960's. It would be nice if Black women could feel that we would benefit when White women benefit but that is not the case.
Posted by: Lorraine Maxwell | June 12, 2008 3:42 PM
Right on, Jim! What a blessing that boys now have such a model to admire and respect. Let's hope that more and more women enter the political arena, succeed in business, and take on major leadership positions in this culture so that sexism becomes a thing of the past.
Posted by: Bill Adair | June 12, 2008 3:44 PM
There is a point about Barack Obama's candidacy that is rarely if ever mentioned: Suppose a white guy with the precise same rhetoric and lack of experience ran for the Presidency he'd do, oh, about as well as John Edwards did.
Obama wins because Black Americans see a half-Black Harvard grad with no slave blood, raised by white folks outside the US as being "one of them." White Americans see him as a non-threatening black they can support as a way to ease their consciences.
Hillary did well despite being a woman; Obama won because he's a black man that white people find acceptable. It's somewhat strange that many white men find a black man much easier to support than a white woman.
Posted by: David Coursey | June 12, 2008 3:46 PM
Paul, a correction to one of your points: the first woman prime minister of Norway (Gro Harlem Brundtland) and the first woman president of Ireland (Mary Robinson) were both head of the Labor Party in their respective countries. (I'm sure there may be others. These are just the ones I know of off-hand.) However, you are correct that *many* of the first women to lead various countries have been conservatives.
Posted by: Ingrid | June 12, 2008 3:49 PM
Everyone talks of the sexism that Hillary Clinton experienced running for president. Has anyone noticed the racism Barack Obama gets every day? Let's start with the fact every commentator refers to him as a black man or African/American. He is as much a white man as he is a black man and he is not so much African American as he is African and American. I am glad African/Americans in our country have found someone they can realte to in Obama. Why is it the rest of us white folks can not relate to the white man in him?
And then there is the xenophobia/antisemitism. Why do all the conservatives that talk to me about my support of Obama have to mention his middle name Hussein when they talk about Obama.
Does anyone remember when Elizabeth Dole ran for president without even holding political office? As I recall she lost to McCain and Bush in her bid and I do not remember anyone saying they would vote for Gore because she lost in the primaries.
Posted by: Paul Amrhein | June 12, 2008 3:50 PM
Thank you for such a well thought out article.
I am so hopeful that the country will embrace the changes that need to be made and that whoever wins has the brains to see what they are.
Fred
Posted by: Fred Grubbs | June 12, 2008 3:58 PM
It was a delight to read the story about Jim Wallis' sons and the story about Elaine Hammond's son.
In fact, it has been especially uplifting to read the post and the responses.
Posted by: Mike Hayes | June 12, 2008 4:01 PM
Thanks, Jim!
YOU ALWAYS have a way of focusing on the 'right thing'! I needed to read what your wrote and I believe Luke's response to all this was and IS so important in the 'big' picture. I also thing it was great that Jack followed Luke. This won't always be so but I think his big brother means a lot to him and what he does is SO influential. YOU are such a gift to all of us no matter what faith we are and I will share your take on the Democratic Presidential Primary with many of my DEAR Republican Friends! Carry on and so will I!
Barbara Hudson
Posted by: Barbara Hudson | June 12, 2008 4:17 PM
I'm glad that we can have canidates of all races run; they all have some good traits and I'm glad Hillary is kind to the children. We all need to come to Christ as little children. Thats what I'm looking for mostly in the canidates; that they have strong faith and humility. That they have character to stand for Truth in Love, and they will not yield to the Party's evil. Another trait we really need is parents who care for the children; especially Mom's who will watch and pray for the children. We need work for all; even those on welfare, in prison, etc should work for what they get. wayne --still growing
Posted by: wayne | June 12, 2008 4:17 PM
Jim, your understanding thoughts just made it easier for this senior adult woman to switch her support to Obama! The press and others did express a bias against Hillary. I stayed with her and cried throughout her Sat. speech. Your sons are two smart dudes!
Lynelle Mason
Posted by: Lynelle Mason | June 12, 2008 4:18 PM
Hillary or B.Hussein Obama? Who cares? Both are open advocates of late term abortion, mercy killing, gay marriage, free speech for porn merchants, and a weak national defense. I thought this was a CHRISTIAN site. Why do I see Christians so openly caring about these horrible candidates?
Posted by: Al N | June 12, 2008 4:19 PM
Frankly, I agree with columnist Peggy Noonan who compared Hillary's response to sexism to that of former great women leaders: Golda Meier, Indira Ghandi and Margaret Thatcher. They entered into politics where the rough and tumble is much more strenuous than in the U.S. and not once did they complain about how they were treated as a woman. Yet every perceived sexist comment provoked Hillary to whine that she was being mistreated cause she's a woman. She a whiner who truly reflects the victimology culture so pervasive today, particularly in the Democratic Party. Barack, for his part, did not whine when racist comments were directed toward him by...who?...Hillary and Bill Clinton!
Posted by: Tall Texan | June 12, 2008 4:32 PM
I agree with almost everything in this article, EXCEPT ONE THING! ! ! ! !
R A C E ! ! ! The continuing use of the word makes my skin crawl especially on a site such as this which I BELIEVE is of/by/for 'Belivers'! The GOD I believe in made ONE RACE ~ H U M A N ~ in His image. There is NO SCIENTIFIC justification for all the 'races' that we throw around like confetti. Everytime we use/give credence to the word we perpetuate the MYTH and call into question the strength of our own beliefs whether we know it or not.
So I for one see no real difference between Obama and myself. Both of us are 'Made by GOD! We should all be much more careful of our use of the wonderful gift of language! Ohhhh??? by the way is it accurate to refer to Sen. Obama as 'african american'?????
Posted by: ole believer | June 12, 2008 4:46 PM
Thank you, Jim, for that perspective. I knew that if she ran, it would get really ugly. I must say that I was not prepared for how ugly it got. As a 45 year old woman I must admit that I feel a personal loss in Hillary's loss. It almost shocks me how sad I felt for her and for our country. Some of the things said about her were vile, and I am not exactly sure who to attribute it to, but I feel pretty certain it comes predominantly from the Right. It also seems that a person could be a female Einstein and still not be good enough to be called President. The requirements are just unbelievably high. It is disorienting to know that GW was good enough to hold the office twice, but yet she still isn't good enough.....go figure.
Most of all, thank you for recognizing the broken hearts of women throughout this land rather than treating it with derision and scorn. I pray that the future is brighter for little girls and boys of all colors because of the whole primary.
Sincerely,
Traci
Posted by: Traci | June 12, 2008 5:29 PM
While Rome is burning, we are debating the importance of electing a woman or a black man. The country is financially, morally and ethically bankrupt. And all we can focus on is getting a token person into the White House based on sexism or racism. To imply that experience, wisdom, morality,and decision-making are not as important as race and gender is wacko. In truth, there is no difference between any of the candidates, all tied into business as usual in Washington. No talk about our impending bankruptcy as a country, the complete corruption in all of our institution, the incompetency of the government bureaucracies, the ravaging aspects of pornography, the collapse of our public schools, the murder of the unborn, the breaking apart of the family. We have Condi Rice and Nancy Pelosi in charge of our foreign policy and the HOuse and they are both at the bottom of public opinion polls. They have both demonstrated they can be just as incompetent as white males. Let's get real and elect a person who knows what needs to be done and has the courage to make the hard choices that must be made. It does not matter the sex, race, or party of the person. Most Americans know the country is collapsing, they know more of the same will only worsen the situation.
Posted by: Dave | June 12, 2008 5:44 PM
I agree that sexism was sometimes a issue in the evaluations of Senator Clinton and her campaign, and I deeply regret it. I also think the indignities and insults she suffered are shared by all women in our culture, most of whom do not have the resources or the support that Senator Clinton has to rely upon. I feel as badly about what is happening to them as I do about her. I also think racism was a factor at times, and I deeply regret that Senator Clinton and her campaign gave force if not voice to it in several instances. But both of these issues should now be put behind us for the time being.
I am troubled, however, by your comments in today's column about your personal relationship -- and that of your son's -- with Senator Clinton. It has an aura of emotional endorsement of Senator Clinton in some way, for some thing; if not that, it certainly lifts her up as a candidate who didn't win to your regret.
I think both candidates in the Democratic primary are skilled and remarkable people. I support Senator Obama's candidacy for president because I think he has and will do more to engage the electorate of young people, whose task (or fate) it is to save our country from some of us older and more accommodated folks. I also think he has shown more courage in naming the issues and errors which we need to address in our common life.
So, I am troubled by your exclusive lifting up of Senator Clinton as a particularly meritorious candidate and linking your endorsement to her Christian activities. Your pulpit is a powerful one, for me as well as many others, and I hope you will use it more fairly in the future. Senator Obama's faith as lived out in his political life is equally impressive as hers. And he too has paid a high price for being faithful to his religious convictions, including the loss of his beloved religious community at Trinity United Church.
I am one of those "older women" who chose to support Senator Obama, even though I have spent my adult life in the effort to lift up feminist issues and support feminist goals. And I have two daughters, three step-daughters, and three grand-daughters -- all of whom I have nurtured with and lectured about feminist issues. I do not believe, however, that the sexism of our culture trumps the racism of our culture, and I do not believe that the critical issues of one should have been used to diminish the critical issues of the other. The campaigns, and their aftermaths, should be lifted above such in-fighting, and I consider that to be a feminist principle! All of the candidates should be evaluated on the basis of -- among other things -- their ability to address both issues with equal ferocity, grace, and sensitivity.
Thank you for all you have done to illuminate our political life and quandaries. I look forward with hope to your acknowledgment of Senator Obama's gifts and contributions as well. Peace to us all.
Mary Charlotte McCall
Posted by: Mary Charlotte McCall | June 12, 2008 6:38 PM
My first entrance into a blog. Thank you for the opportunity. And thank you for your open and honest response to the campaign that we have all witnessed. I was for Hilary Clinton, and still am,but I first and foremost for the best for this country and I see only see Obama and the Democrat party as olding hope to all of us. I sincerely hope that all your readers will look carefully at the voting records of their US Senators and Representatives, and give support to their presidential choice with back up of a Congress that believes as they do. If not, we will be left with the same hopeless situation in which we have lived for the last 8 years. Thank you. LK
Posted by: Lorraine Kroetch | June 12, 2008 8:47 PM
Thank you for your good comments about Sen. Clinton. I believe that she would have won if
there had not been such media bias against her
and such extreme bias in favor of Sen.Obama.
She would make a great President, and would do
many good things for our country.
I have not been reading your commentary for a
while, because I felt that you were endorsing
Barack Obama. I feel better about you and your
work now.
Posted by: Margaret | June 12, 2008 11:05 PM
Greetings from Christchurch, New Zealand. Although outside the USA and thus only observing from afar the primaries and forthcoming presidential election, I am a strong supporter of the political flavour of Call to Renewal, Sojouners and Red Letter Christian and have long appreciated Jim Wallis' writings. However I must say I am not sure how to take Jim's apparent endorsement of Hillary Clinton. The biggest problem I have with her is her apparent "economy with the truth". I may be idealistic, but the primary character quality I would look for in any aspiring political leader is personal integrity and honesty. Maybe I'm idealistic and the ability to tell bare-faced lies is part of what is needed for high public office these days. However surely the story of landing in Kosovo under sniper fire must call into question Senator Clinton's credibility, not only in the sense of her personal integrity, but also in the sense of her competence - how could she not foresee that the first thing the media would do on hearing that story would be to dig out the footage from the time. I would appreciate a response from Jim on this issue.
Nevertheless keep up the good work and we hope Jim will visit us downunder in New Zealand some time.
Posted by: Peter in New Zealand | June 13, 2008 6:13 AM
HRC was undoubtably treated to sexist comments and commetary, however, on balance that is more a comment about the kinds of things that were said about her, not the quantity or quality. For sheer volume of media distortion and ridicule Al Gore got more than any presidential candidate I've seen in the last 50 years. The Swift boat add run against Kerry and Willy Horton add against Mike dukakis far more vicious than anything I heard this year. We could cwertainly do with a more civil discourse, but until then all candidates need to be prepare for the worst.
Posted by: Michael Hechmer | June 13, 2008 9:02 AM
Although I am an Obama supporter, I would like to raise up another "ism" that is in this political race for the Presidency. John McCain's age has also been an issue with questions being asked "is he too old to be President." So, we have had a woman, a black man and an older man running for President. Will there be a time when our human-constructed divisions created in order to dominate be put aside and we don't have these "isms" (i.e. sexism, racism, ageism) be a part of the political process.
To quote John Lennon, "maybe I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one."
Posted by: Grace A. | June 13, 2008 10:05 AM
Thanks for your post. It was, I am sure, heartfelt. You miss the point AGAIN of Hillary by calling her a "Clinton and therefore Restoration" candidate. If that describes Hillary then what are you Jim? Because of your age and experience? Are you to be passed over because of your long years and hearfelt commitment for justice? No, I think not. Your sons had the right candidate and the sexism against Hillary and the hatred for women in this country is what caused the loss. Her "mistakes" were no more and no less that anyone else - take BHO and his James Johnson mistake. The last name "Clinton" is one of the greatest qualifiers in the world.
Posted by: Rev Linda | June 13, 2008 12:18 PM
I hope in the church we don't let conversation about sexism in this country stop with parsing/analyzing the election. I'm not sure it was sexism that caused Hillary to lose. In fact, Obama deserves much credit for his reading of the country/mood and running a good campaign. (His lack of specifics still worry me!)
My hope is that we will continue the conversation about all the 'isms' and not do what the MSNBC 'boys' did this morning when they dismissed talk of sexism as just sour grapes from a loser.
What happened for many women and I know for me was that we heard the sexist code and dismissiveness in so much of what the political commentaters said. Our passion for Hillary grew because of it. For me, I woke up in the middle of the night several times remembering those old feelings when they were directed at me.
There was the voter who was interviewed who said he couldn't vote for Hillary because the Bible was quite clear about a woman's place and it wasn't to have that sort of authority. It was never mentioned by the commentators. If a voter had quoted the Bible as the reason to not vote for a black, there would have been much discussion about it and rightly so.
I find myself torn between pride that we have come this far and have a black man in this position to run for president and sad that as Jim said, sexism seems to still be so accepted.
Just because there were others factors in politics, let's not let this conversation be pushed into the corner again.
Rose Wayland
Posted by: Rose Wayland | June 13, 2008 7:46 PM
To Peter in New Zealand:
You spoke of the Kosovo incident and questioned
Sen. Clinton's credibility. She obviously did
mis-speak, but not with the intention to deceive.
She had written correctly about the Bosnia trip in
her book. When she made the statement that included exaggeration, she had been campaigning
vigorously almost non-stop for many months with
very little sleep. She is much too smart to have
intentionally made an exaggerated claim concerning
an event which had been given so much publicity
nationally at the time it happened, and which she
had already accurately written about in her book.
She simply mis-spoke because of stress and exhaustion. She is a good honorable person
who has dedicated her life to serving our country.
If you want to know who does have a major credibility problem, take a close look at Barack
Obama. There are many proven examples of outright
falsehoods that Obama has written in his books and
spoken in his speeches. These are just a few of
those examples and others:
1)He said that his father got an airlift and ticket to America from the Kennedys. This was
proven to be false and was reported as such in
the Washington Post and the New York Times.
2)In a speech Obama gave in Selma--which is on
video tape-- he claimed that his parents got
together because of the Selma march, and that he
was born as a result of that. The fact is - he
was born 4 years BEFORE THE SELMA MARCH. This has
been reported on several news networks.
3) He lied about the amount of money that the
Chicago man (Obama's friend and associate)
Rezko had given him. He only admitted it when
he knew it was coming out in the trial. This was
reported on cable news outlets after the trial
started, and after other news outlets like ABC
NEWS and the CHICAGO TRIBUNE had reported on it.
4) Obama claimed to have been involved in a
campaign to have asbestos removed from public
housing in Chicago. A resident and community
activist who was there said that he had no part
in it. This has also been reported by the media.
5) He claimed to be a law professor at the
University of Chicago, but their web site had
him listed as a LECTURER.
6) He went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20
years and called him his Spiritual mentor. Then
after Wright's rants against America and white
people went public, Obama claimed he never knew
his pastor felt that way. Even Chris Matthews
of MSNBC said that is NOT credible and Mr.Matthews
usually spoke favorably of Obama. If Obama stayed in a church with a racist,hate-preaching pastor
for 20 years, he either used the church for
political gain or he shares those same sentiments.
7) Obama and his surrogates were constantly
spreading the falsehood (on MSNBC) that he had
won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. The
truth is - Sen. Clinton won 21 states and he won
29 states. In addition, she won Puerto Rico and
American Samoa; He won the Virgin Islands, D.C.,
and Guam.
Sen.Clinton won almost all of the big states,and
ACTUALLY WON THE MOST POPULAR VOTES. (You can see
the official final results on the Democratic Party
Website: 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION IN
DENVER.)
If the popular vote decided the winner(and it
should), Senator Clinton would be the Democratic
nominee.
I did not think that I would ever vote for a Republican again, but unless Sen. Clinton is on
the Democratic ticket, I will vote for McCain.
I do not trust the leadership of our country to
Sen. Obama. I don't agree with Sen. McCain's
policies, but at least I believe that he is an
honorable man. I would much rather see Sen. Clinton as our President, but much of the media,
especially MSNBC, seem to have launched a full -
fledged campaign to coronate the least qualified,
least known candidate to become the leader of our
country. God can still change things. There is
still time for enough Americans to wake up, speak
up, and persuade the superdelegates to make the
right decision at the convention in August.
I am not a racist. It does not matter about the
color or gender of the person elected. I just
pray that it will be the one most qualified and
most dedicated. I believe that Colin Powell would
make a good President. Maybe he will run for that
office someday.
I do not want to offend anyone by my comments,
but I do believe that this is too important to
fail to express our true feelings; and most of
all, I believe that each one of us should sincerely pray that God's will be done in this
matter.
Thank you, Rev. Wallis, for allowing us the
privilege of expressing our thoughts.
Posted by: Margaret | June 14, 2008 1:54 AM
"God can still change things. There is
still time for enough Americans to wake up, speak
up, and persuade the super delegates to make the
right decision at the convention in August."
Margaret
Dear Margaret,
I am not an American and, therefore, do not know what the American voter (necessarily), is looking for in their President.
I do know, however, that you are not voting for the next Pope, even though some American Christians might be excused for giving that impression.
Still,
How can you excuse Hillary's lying about Bosnia sniper fire without excusing Obama's 'lies' in the same manner? I mean, you seem like such a charitable person or is that only when it comes to Hillary? Why?
My point, if you can go to the public record to give us instances of Obama's 'economy with the truth', most certainly you can do the same for Hillary, and we all know who has more experience. Please be fair.
And,
Is your decision to vote for McCain now based on the fact that he is the one God wants? Is God so flippant that He can actually manipulate super delegates to pick your choice, Margaret?
Are you not giving Evangelicals a bad name?
- Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | June 14, 2008 4:09 AM
Margaret,
My friends and neighbours here in East Africa are happy that Hillary has vowed to do all that she can to see that Obama wins.
They know, you see, that he needs the 18 million voters who backed her on his side if he is to beat McCain.
What they (and I) haven't heard much about is how many votes went to Obama.
Well, after hearing so often that she got more of the popular vote (which I find confusing) and reading your affirmation of the same, I decided to check.
Did Clinton win the popular vote?
And this is the answer from Factcheck.org:
'Obama won more votes unless you count Michigan, where he wasn't on the ballot.
Only by counting Michigan, where Clinton's name was on the ballot but Obama's was not, can Clinton claim to have won more votes. Counting only officially reported results, Michigan puts Clinton's total ahead nationally by 286,687 votes or 0.8 percent. Once estimated votes from the four non-reporting states are included, the margin becomes less significant: 176,465 votes, or 0.5 percent. And if Michigan's "uncommited" votes were accorded to Obama, he'd have a 61,703-vote lead (0.2 percent), counting estimates from the non-reporting states.
For the record, Clinton hasn't always been so eager to count Michigan votes. On Oct. 11, 2007, she said of the state, "It's clear, this election they're having isn't going to count for anything." But that was when she was wooing New Hampshire voters, who cherish their first-in-the-nation primary and who were upset that Michigan was violating party rules designed to protect it. She was responding to an interviewer for New Hampshire Public Radio who asked, "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, 'Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?' " Clinton went on to win the New Hampshire primary.'
What do you say to that?
Is someone being economical with the truth here?
And, why would you not back Obama, when your candidate has already pledged allegiance?
I really want to know ...
- Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | June 14, 2008 5:32 AM
Dear Robert Alu,
It is nice to hear from someone in East Africa.
To answer one of your first questions concerning
whether God would manipulate the superdelegates:
God is not a manipulater. Do I believe that God
intervenes in earthly matters in answer to the
prayers of Christians? Yes, I do. I could cite
many Scriptures from the New Testament, but I
encourage you to read it yourself.
Both Testaments of the Christian Bible give ample
evidence that God is very concerned about who
occupies the highest office in the land. When I
made the statement that Christians should pray
that God's will be done in this matter, I thought
that the people to whom I addressed the statement
were all Christians. I believe that most
Evangelical Christians also belileve that we
should pray that God's will be done.
The model prayer that Christ Jesus gave us
includes these words:Our Father who art in Heaven,
hallowed be thy Name, thy kingdom come,THY WILL
BE DONE IN EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN. Matthew
Chapter 6,Verses 9 and 10.
When I said that we should pray for God's will
to be done, I was not saying that Sen. McCain is
God's choice. Based on what each political party
stands for, each side has good points and negative
points, when viewed in the light of the Bible.
I understand that you do not seem to agree that
electing a President should be a spiritual matter
as well as a political one. I believe that I speak
for many, if not most, evangelicals when I say
that we believe that it should be. One of the
greatest privileges and duties that we have in
America is the right to vote. I strongly believe
that we should ask God's guidance in all things -
especially in something as important as this.
Concerning the matter of who received the
most votes in the Democratic primary:
The official certified vote total is THE OFFICIAL
CERTIFIED VOTE TOTAL. Any speculation about any
other total is not going to change that. The
Democratic Convention site has the OFFICIAL
CERTIFIED RESULTS and IT DOES INCLUDE MICHIGAN.
According to that FINAL and OFFICIAL CERTIFIED
VOTE total, Senator Clinton won the most votes.
Senator Obama took his name off the Michigan
ballot by choice, not by necessity. Even if
he had been given all of the uncommitted votes
(which would have been grossly unfair because
there were other candidates in the race then and
some of those votes were intended for candidate
Edwards, according to the exit polls) Senator
Clinton would have still gotten the most total
Certified votes.
If you checked the polls before the Michigan
primary, you know that Sen. Clinton was ahead
of Sen. Obama by a very wide margin. Maybe that
was the reason that he decided to take his name
off the ballot, or maybe it was because he wanted
to please the Iowa voters. Only he knows the
answer to that.
However, as a Christian, I believe in a spiritual
law written in the New Testament about sowing
and reaping.
According to a report given by Anderson Cooper on
CNN, MR. Obama gained his first political office
by a type of Chicago politics which many consider
unethical, though not illegal. He took action to
get his opponents names taken off the ballot and
succeeded in doing so.
You can check those facts for yourself.
Senator Clinton has endorsed Senator Obama, but
I do not make my decision based on anyone's
endorsement - not even someone I admire as much
as I admire her.
I know that no one is perfect, and Sen. Obama
probably does have many good qualities, as well
as negative ones. However, considering the things
that I have learned about Mr.Obama, the negatives
are too major for him to be the one that I vote
for.
I understand that you would like for him to be
elected. That is your decision and I respect that
decision. I ask that you respect my decision
not to vote for him.
God bless you.
Posted by: Margaret | June 14, 2008 10:11 PM
A black woman is running for president: Cynthia McKinney, Congresswoman from Georgia who served six years in the US House of Reps as the first African American woman to represent Georgia. She has more political experience than either Barack or Hillary.
Cynthia McKinney grew up in the Civil Rights movement and has always courageously stood up to injustice. She consistently spoke out against the war in Iraq and sponsored bills against nuclear weapons. She was one of the few brave members of Congress to try to block the re-election of George W. Bush because of the electoral fraud in Ohio.
Her bio is stunning on human rights, international relations, peacemaking, 9/11 commission, Hurricane Katrina....
But she does not have the backing of either of the two major parties so she has been ignored by the media.
I wish that Luke and the rest of the country knew about such upstanding leaders such as Cynthia.
Posted by: Sayrah | June 17, 2008 2:54 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?