Against Sen. Clinton’s Cultured Despisers: Obamaniacs

May 13, 2008

What follows is a long (it really is a violation of the short, manageable post rule) reflection - an essay regarding my support for Sen. Clinton. I have deleted several posts of earlier articulations of my reasons for supporting Sen. Clinton (I apologize if your comments were deleted. Matt and I are very honored that you read our thoughts and write your thoughts). I deleted the earlier posts because this post brings the arguments I made elsewhere together. In addition, I want this post to reflect something like a final word. I have set quotations in bold and omitted citations for some quotations that anyone acquainted with Google can find. Thanks for reading my argument.

Before getting started, let me point to the arguments:

1. The arguments Obamaniacs use against Sen. Clinton apply to Sen. Obama.
2. Good arguments, however, can be made for each candidate.
3. It’s the politics of identification that wins the day - that is, the politics of identification helps one make a decision one way or the other.

**
1)

Over the course of the 2008 Democratic Primary - Obamaniacs have launched several critiques against Sen. Clinton and her campaign. However, when the primary critiques deployed against Sen. Clinton are turned against Sen. Obama - they stick. The point: Obama supporters reveal the hypocrisy of Sen. Obama’s campaign (In the voice of American Idol’s Simon Cowell after he gives strong criticism: ‘Sorry.’).


Obamaniac Critique: Sen. Clinton does not tell the truth.¹

Response: Sen. Obama demeaned small town folk when he made an attempt to argue small town people are determined by/reducible to their economic circumstances. Sen. Obama, in essence, lied about small town people. And if he did not lie - he revealed he is arrogant. And if he did not reveal he is arrogant - he revealed he is ignorant. Ultimately, Obama does not always speak the truth.

Obamaniac Critique: Sen. Clinton makes decisions for political reasons.

Response: Let’s turn our attention to Rev. Wright. Obama delegitimized Wright. First, Obama suggested Wright was stuck in the past (‘This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.’). Obama then suggested Wright was angry (’For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.’). Step one: Wright does not get it. Step two: he can be dismissed on account of the fact he is just angry.

Mark Jordan, in another context, reminds us: ‘Truth’s speakers don’t often radiate handsome honesty. They are disconcerting and diverse rather than comfortably familiar. They are rarely received with admiring attention. And what they have to say can seem beyond hearing - or bearing’ (Telling Truths in Church: Scandal, Flesh, and Christian Speech [Boston: Beacon Press, 2003], 6).

There are many strategies for dismissing the Truth conveyed by Truth’s speakers. One way of dismissing Truth is by dismissing the Truth teller as ‘angry.’ Obama, in his speech on race, does not suggest all anger is bad - and Jordan does not argue all anger is good. There is the anger of love and there is the anger of hatred. What strikes me as interesting is the correspondence between what Jordan calls the ‘anger of love’ and what Obama suggests is ‘counterproductive’ anger. Jordan writes, ‘What gets dismissed as ‘angry’ criticism is often speech that comes after long sadness, out of old sadness. Or it is speech that demonstrates enduring care for the churches. Wayne Koestenbaum writes, ‘Anger (among its many uses) is a form of flirtation.’ We might add, ‘angry’ dissent is a way to woo one’s church. It is not jealousy or hurt feelings so much as deep disappointment at the way churches deform themselves’ (Telling Truths, 19).

It does not take much imagination to see Rev. Wright’s anger as angry/faithful love for his country. However, Obama acted like a typical politician: he threw Rev. Wright under the bus - exactly at the point Rev. Wright talked back. Obama stated: ‘They [Wright's Press Club comments] offend me. They rightly offend all [really?] Americans. And they should be denounced, and that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.’

A Rasmussen Poll confirmations my sense of the Obama v. Wright situation. 58% of 800 likely voters said they believed ‘Obama [denounced] Wright because it [was] politically convenient.’

Sally Quinn, in a cheap hit article, points out that what goes around comes around. And since we are being immature, let’s remember who started this: Obama and Edwards. Each suggested Sen. Clinton was compromised because she took money from lobbyists. The same foolish argumentation - but no one thought to lambaste the boys, did they?

Obamaniac Critique: Sen. Clinton is racist.

Response: The Wright debacle opened wide the festering wound of racism in this country. And though Matt and I find ourselves disagreeing about many realties, we both agree racism is that which belongs to the one who seeks to destroy the good creation of God. But we have come to another point where Sen. Obama is not above reproach.

Sen. Obama suggested his grandmother was a ‘typical white person’ because she, according to Obama, fears the stranger. In his speech on race, Obama says: ‘I can no more disown him [Rev. Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.’ Obama later followed up: ‘The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know [...] there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way’ (italics added).

Senator Obama has a view of ‘white people.’

Sen. Clinton, is of course, being accused (right here on Messages) of racism - playing the race card or, as some are saying, ‘the crazy card.’ Of course, it is not clear whether or not the previous sentiments are, in fact, true.

In response to Matt, I posted two pieces (here and here). I want to highlight the point Jonathan Capehart made (and the point Matt seems to miss): Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have bases of support! It is simply true that Sen. Clinton has, by and large, done better with white voters - esp. white voters who did not go to college (a group that favors her 64% - 34%). Why? It could be that these voters are dumb and racist (as Obama and Matt have suggested elsewhere). Or it could be that these voters have responded positively to Sen. Clinton’s concrete plans for the economy and, therefore, have responded less well to an ambiguous, transcendent message (not to say that race is not a factor for some of these voters - and that is a deplorable fact).

Of course, Obama has done considerably better among white voters than Sen. Clinton has done among black voters. However, if Sen. Obama can have a view of the ‘typical white person’ - it’s only fair that Sen. Clinton be allowed to have a view, as well - namely, white folk have problems with Sen. Obama. And while it is important to note that Sen. Obama has not (to my knowledge) said black voters (and Obama has appealed to black voters: see here - about 2.55 in) have a serious problem with Sen. Clinton, one can understand why: 1) he is confident he will win the nomination and 2) the media is doing that for him.

Recent Gallop Poll research indicates that Sen. Obama’s ‘current level of support among white voters in a head-to-head matchup against John McCain is no worse than John Kerry’s margin of support among whites against George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.’ It is concluded: ‘At the moment, Gallup Poll Daily tracking indicates that this November’s election could be close, as has been the popular vote in 2000 and 2004. In other words, just as 2004 was in many ways a replay of 2000, this year’s election could be a replay of 2004 with minor changes around the edges.’

Of course, what the Gallop research is suggesting is: 1) given the numbers, if Kerry was the nominee in 2004, why can’t Obama be the nominee in 2008? This argument is not lost on me. What the Gallop research also suggests is that the result of the 2008 election may look a lot like the result of the 2004 election - and here we are at Sen. Clinton’s point.

Obamaniac Critique: Hillary is dividing this country along the lines of race and class.

Response: Race is addressed above, but now we turn to the issue of class. Matt wants to turn President Clinton’s comments, highlighted in this post, into another strategy to divide the people of this country along the lines of race and class. However, let us not forget Obama’s ‘bitter’ comments and the context in which they were made.

Obamaniac Critique: Hillary will say whatever she needs to say to win.

Response: Sen. Obama’s entire campaign has been built upon ‘change’ - and in order to make the claim that he is change - he must make the claim that Sen. Clinton is not change - but politics as usual. Never mind her position on health care, for instance. Never mind that major party leaders (e.g., Kerry and Kennedy) have supported Obama. Never mind Hillary’s reaching out to a demographic Democrats rarely appeal to: less educated, lower income, rural folk. Never mind Hillary is a woman.

David Halperin writes, in a book about a different topic, ‘Truth’ [...] is not the opposite of error [...], ‘truth’ is a discursive strategy that (among other things) blocks inquiry into the conditions - dynamic and erotic - of its own production. It enables the exercise of power and the play of desire in discourse to disappear from view.’ (Saint = Foucault: Towards A Gay Hagiography [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995], 184, 185). What is the ‘truth’ of Obama’s discourse?²

Obama’s transcendent message produces the sense that Sen. Obama is above it all: He is not politically calculating; He is not like Senator Clinton; Sen. Obama is not a product of the Baby Boomer generation (read, ‘not of this world’), and, therefore, can really take the country somewhere new. However, when one looks under the rhetorical skirt, so to speak, another reality emerges.

And let us not forget what Obama did not have to say because the media/Obamaniacs said a great deal for Obama. At any rate, a lot gets said on the Obama side that does not have much merit.

2)

Contrary to the argument of the ‘Empire Strikes Barack,’ Senator Clinton is not evil. Senator Clinton is a strong, courageous, and intelligent public servant (a fact the Obamaniacs will not admit). Sen. Obama is also strong, courageous, and intelligent.

Like Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton is ‘in this’ for herself - and she is also ‘in this’ for the people of this country. It’s hard to imagine enduring the loathsome media attacks since Iowa and the scorn of so many of the party elite for having the audacity to hope - the conviction there is still ‘a way out of no way’ - if she were in this simply for herself.

In addition, unlike Senator Obama, Senator Clinton stands for universal health care. Senator Obama supports more of the same in terms of health care. However, the most important lesson to be learned from Sen. Clinton’s position on health care is this: unity is not as important as justice.

The god of unity is one of the god’s of Empire. A great deal of injustice has been done in the name of unity - national cohesiveness. Of course, there are issues that inspire unity. The war in Iraq may be one such issue. However, many issues require a stubbornness, an unmatched cunning, and health care may be one of those issues. Unity is achievable on the basis of compromise alone, and we cannot compromise our conviction that every citizen must have access to health care.

However, Sen. Obama’s foreign policy is refreshing - so long as it’s also cautious.

Sen. Clinton does not allow race OR class to prevent her from reaching out and making a case to all voters. Where was Sen. Obama during the Kentucky or West Virgina primaries? What did Obama say about small town folk again?

However, Sen. Obama, overall, strikes me as the better politician. He has, after all, bested the so-called ‘Clinton machine.’

Each candidate is also to be commended for their hopefulness. Obama has and is working hard, and he is hoping for a positive outcome (secured on 6 June, 2008). Having said that, no one (to my knowledge) argued that Sen. Obama should not run for the highest office in this country, when, in the beginning, no one believed he could win. He had hope. In the same manner, no one should argue for Sen. Clinton to leave the race when, it seems, she cannot win. She has the audacity to hope (thank you, Jason, for this citation), and two recent polls suggests Democrats want this race to continue.

3)

In the end, one must stand and be counted. And as Sen. Obama’s Obamaniacs continue to attempt to destroy Sen. Clinton, now is the time for Sen. Clinton supporters to make our support clear.

Since Iowa, Obamaniacs of all stripes noted blood in the water (and it was reported on 6 June, 2008 - that Obama noted that if he had lost Iowa the race would have been over). At that point, a Sen. Obama win was no longer viewed as an impossibility, and those ‘in the know’ began (if not long before) to invest in a story, the story of a Clinton loss. Those ‘in the know’ attacked Sen. Clinton - for instance, it was argued Sen. Clinton won New Hampshire because people felt sorry for her. In addition, Sen. Clinton was swiftboated - her honorable years of service to this country were used as fodder for arguing she represents ‘more of the same.’ She has been attacked for supporting her husband; she has been called a liar; she has been associated with Darth Vader and Hitler. She has been attacked for staying in the race (even before Ohio and Pennsylvania), and she has been called a racist and a sore loser. Those ‘in the know’ have suggested Sen. Obama would need a food taster if he offered Sen. Clinton the ‘number two’ position,’ and some have shamelessly argued Sen. Clinton is bring Obama down - so she can run again in 2012. The silly season knows no end.

My thought is always in the process of change - especially as new information becomes available. And as this campaign continued, I suddenly became aware of why I was feeling so strongly for Sen. Clinton. She had been constructed as ‘gay’ - and she was sharing my experience. I identified with Sen. Clinton.

How many of the gays have been falsely accused of all manner of things? How many of the gays been misconstrued by those ‘in the know’ (e.g., doctors, pastors, presidents, etc.). How many of the gays have felt the full force of the powers that be - those powers that, no matter what we say - refuse to believe we are not evil. And how many still believe homophobia is acceptable. More than a few.

Some have tried to associate my support of Sen. Clinton with ‘white sympathy’ or ‘white rage.’ I am just upset that a black man is beating a white woman. I can not reject this stupid idea strongly enough. I support Sen. Clinton for a wealth of reasons (e.g., she’s strong, smart, trustworthy, strategic, defiant, capable, for ‘earthy’ people, etc.) - reasons that, when translated, Obama supporters may use to speak of their support for Obama. But, in the end, what makes Sen. Clinton the irresistible candidate is the fact that I, as a gay male, can identify, in may own way and only to a certain degree, with her and what she has been through these many months. I support my sister - it’s a matter of justice. That’s just how all this played out this go around.

Footnotes:

1. I do not agree with these statements - I only highlight them because they are the steps Obama supporters attempt to take to higher ground↩
2. And now that I think about it - it may be the case that there is an interesting correspondence between how some have treated Foucault and how some have treated Sen. Clinton↩

Posted by Tony Posted in Bi/Partisan Politics, Current Events, Posts by Tony, Social Commentary