The Redstar Perspective

UPDATE (10:55 p.m.): Apparently I’m not the only one quitting. HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson is expected to resign tomorrow. Wahoo!!! Ok, now I’m done. Read on.

–

It’s with some sadness and some relief that I write this post: I will not be blogging anymore at The Redstar Perspective. This has been a difficult decision, and I’m still unsure what it means. I may retire this site entirely, or I may resurrect it at an unknown point in the future. I’m still sorting out the details.

Here’s what led to this decision, somewhat in order of importance:

a) It’s time to write my dissertation. After meeting with two of my advisors recently, it’s clear I can finish this thing in the next 12 to 15 months and GRADUATE!!! Especially since the New Year, but generally speaking, blogging has become my primary activity, and an enormous time suck for me. Yes, my stats are SLOWLY growing, and, according to readers, my writing is improving. But, in addition to feeling like I’m losing my way re: the content of this blog (more on that in a minute), I also feel like I’m investing so much time and energy in this blog and not generating the returns I want to get. It’s not ok with me that my readership grows when I discuss the general election, because that’s not my preferred content focus. The hours I’ve been spending on posts about Obama v. Clinton, etc., is distracting me from really focusing on the writing I need to be doing NOW - that is, on issues of social justice, urban recovery and contentious politics in post-Katrina New Orleans. In other words, my dissertation.

b) I no longer feel comfortable blogging without anonymity in the ’sphere. Given where I’m at in my still-emerging career, I’m not ok with folks’ ability to track down my thoughts and opinions on-line.  I regret not blogging anonymously, and any blogging I do in the future will strive for greater anonymity. For someone with deeply personal intellectual interests, the current context of the Democratic primary and the empassioned and often heated on-line discussions of race, racism, gender, sexism and misogyny, privilege and prejudice have left me feeling that the web is an even less safe space to really grapple with these issues. In our splicing and dicing interpretative world, I know my thoughts and perspectives on the primary, on poverty, on my family, etc. are up for grabs for appropriation and re-interpretation. Nonetheless, I plan to remove some of the content from this site, but will leave the rest up for the history books.
c) The RP has run its course. This blog began in part because of my work in New Orleans, because my buddy Jake urged me to blog rather than send long e-mails to everyone I knew about what I was experiencing in the city beginning in January 2006. With this dissertation, my work in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast is coming to a close. This blog has grown from that original reporting, to cover topics of development, poverty, housing, inequality, activism, cities, and politics more broadly, but all of this has been mixed up with odes to my boyfriend, Grey’s Anatomy, and random (hopefully amusing) stories about my childhood and roots. Frankly, I’m not interested in writing a general interest blog that’s a mix of analysis and journaling. I need the latter for my mental health, but I’ll find another outlet. My priority is to examine urban inequality, especially as it impacts low-income women, households, and neighborhoods. This is what I want to be blogging about (and working on in my lifetime), and I know there’s a niche audience who wants more of this. I’ve got all kinds of ideas for blogging, but I need a new and fresh venue. That will come in time.

So there you have it. Just in time for what would have been the second annual RP History Month. I’m still figuring out how to keep my original New Orleans posts and select others on-line and available. I’ll probably make an announcement about that in the future.

If you’d like to stay in touch, please leave a note in comments. That will give me an e-mail address for you (remember, others can’t see it) if/when I launch another blog.

Thanks to all my readers and champions over the last two years, especially NYC Weboy, and other blogging allies such as Professor Zero, DonnaDarko, Pizza Diavola and Pocochina. It’s been fun, instructive, exhausting and mostly my pleasure. I have become a blogger. Look at me.

Until we meet again, I leave you with some highly recommended reading:

Please read this disturbing, enraging and graphic coverage of the brutal rape and assault of a woman and her kids in Dunbar Village in W. Palm Beach, FL, and how you can let the NAACP know where their legal, PR and activist resources really belong.

A pregnant man challenges people’s ideas about gender, sexuality, and reproductive rights. And shakes up the healthcare profession. (H/t Echidne.) Meanwhile, pregnancy discrimination complaints from women reach record levels.

A refreshing comments thread that asks bloggers to cool it re: their election coverage. Instead of all the collective hyperventilating, let’s all check out Insurgent American’s 35-Point Practical Guide for Action. (H/t Corrente.)

Read Brownfemipower’s WAM conference speech about centering feminist activism around questions of citizenship and the problems this creates for advocating for immigrant women. (How I missed this conference - held at MIT, the irony! - is beyond me.)

Be well, have fun, and stay safe.

From a CBS “Oppression Olympics” poll, insipidly titled “Gender Matters More Than Race” (My emphases, of course):

Voters are slightly more likely to say that a woman candidate faces more obstacles than a black candidate when it comes to presidential politics even as they see racism as a more serious problem for the nation overall, according to a new CBS News poll. Thirty nine percent of registered voters said a woman running for president faces more obstacles while 33 percent said a black candidate does.

When it comes to the 2008 presidential election, voters say Hillary Clinton has been judged more harshly because of her gender than Barack Obama has because of his race. Forty two percent said Clinton has been judged “more harshly” and six percent said she has been judged less harshly because of her gender. Twenty seven percent said they think Obama has been judged “more harshly” because of his race while 11 percent said he has been judged less harshly.

Still, racism is seen as a bigger problem for the nation in general. Among all adults surveyed, 42 percent of respondents said racism is a “serious problem” in the country compared to just 10 percent who said…sexism [is a serious problem]. Twenty three percent said both are serious problems.

…

…all groups said they are more offended by racist remarks than sexist ones.

…

More voters admit their unwillingness to vote for a woman. Nearly one in five voters says that all things being equal, they would rather vote for a man.

Moral of the story: It’s hard out here for a lady, but spare us your tears.

Aren’t polls so helpful and informative??

Obama’s Philly speech is here.  My initial thoughts on the audacity of his campaign are here. 

Initial reactions from around the web are coming in.  I agree with Melissa at Shakesville about the absence of reaction to Wright’s comments about Clinton.  She links it to complaints (like mine) about elitism, and I’d only add that sexism is infused in this elitism, as the worlds of politics, academia, and other high status professions are often the worst arenas for gender inequity and (white) male privilege.  Feministing commenters continue the debate about the absence of addressing sexism in Obama’s speech.

I also agree with Jeralyn at Talk Left that this speech will ameliorate unsettled Obama supporters and not work with those already disinclined to support him.

Finally, I don’t have the same reaction to his speech as Riverdaughter, but she raises a good point about his passive references to the use of race during the campaign.  Obama’s use of vague and passive language like she points out has bugged me to no end this campaign, as his phrases like “the forces of division” remind me of Bush’s framing of geopolitical conflict as the war between good vs. evil.  The rest of the speech was strong and direct, so let’s knock off the insinuations, Obama. 

(This post is a substitute for the Excellent academic meme I am supposed to participate in. I don’t read enough academic blogs.)

I’ve always known I am an ageist. I have a tendency to look up or around me for information, not down. (I also don’t like bending down, though I think that’s due to my height and old back injury.)

Part of this is due to my own desire to grow up fast - I’m always looking ahead, and I rarely miss the “good old days.” Thus, I’m tough on the youngsters, which by now I’d probably think of as anyone about 4-5 years younger than me. What can I say, at least I’m in touch with my biases.

This NY Times article about young, famous DC blogger dudes (ok, I think they mention one or two women by name) triggered this observation. Matt Yglesias (26) and Ezra Klein (23) are two featured bloggers I recently dropped from my Google reader (my blogroll to the right is much more comprehensive than what I read daily). Yglesias I just found too narrow-minded in his Upper West Side worldview after awhile (despite his relative awareness of his own lens), and Ezra I only recently dropped after too much hysterical shrieking over Clinton and a willingness to tolerate his even more unglued commenters (for those who suspect a bias, I also dropped Taylor Marsh, for her pro-Clinton zeal).

Of course, given how much time I spend in the ’sphere, and how much news I get from it versus from other sources, I often forget that a large chunk of its *authoritative* voices are from folks (dudes, really) under 30. Reading this article now, I felt a mixture of dismissiveness and jealousy. Why am I listening to these young, white boys? And why is everybody else? Consider these excerpts:

Life in the house informs life on the blog…

UnfoggeDCon was so popular that the Flophouse played host to it again last year. It was a typical keg party, with 70-plus people packed into the house for drinking and dancing. “We had a laptop and people were live blogging the party for the people who couldn’t come,” Becks said.

These bloggers are the cool kids who know they’re smart, like some Seth Rogen character with a Ph.D. from Harvard’s Kennedy School.

Oy. (Though I did throw a great party back in my 20-something NY days. In my 30s in Boston, not so much.)

In part because so many people blog anonymously, this leaves me wondering about the life experience (and indirectly, age) of the bloggers I really enjoy and/or respect. So I made a list of my faves; the ones I look forward to reading, even if I don’t always agree with them.

After the jump are my Top 12. I separate them according to if they’re part of my “Clinton blogging” world or not, as with the Clinton-related folks I spend little time discussing anything but the primary, and we all (except for Big Tent Democrat) are Clinton supporters. There’s also a bonus shout-out for a new blogroll addition at the end.

(more…)

Yesterday, after my conference ended, I called the M.A.S. and railed against the infantile on-line fighting about the Democratic primary.  More and more bloggers are equally fed up: Parachutec at Firedoglake takes us all to task for our blind idolatry, points out the obvious reality that neither Clinton nor Obama are especially progressive, and concludes with asking us what the issues are on which we’ll hold the incoming President accountable.  Much to his/her and my dismay, virtually no commenter answers the question, whether because they are unable to or uninterested in doing so. 

I can think of several issues, which I had the pleasure of discussing and learning more about in the company of 1,500+ conference attendees here in New Orleans this week.  We were at PolicyLink’s third Regional Equity summit, where major topics included poverty alleviation, affordable housing, racial equity, and social and economic justice.  One of the plenaries was a discussion of keeping race and equity on the political agenda in the ‘08 elections (though the question came up if they were even on the agenda in any meaningful way).  Comprised of Jim Wallis, Maria Echaveste, Patrick Gaspard (EVP of SEIU1199), Antonio Gonzalez, and Dr. Robert K. Ross, and moderated by Tavis Smiley, the panel was fascinating mainly in the candidates’ varying degrees of optimism or pessimism about the possibilities for a progressive agenda, and increasing the political power of ethnic/racial minorities. (With only one woman on the panel, it was the least gender balanced of the 6 I attended, indicative of the gender bias in our political sphere, including who is considered an authority.) 

Wallis, a preacher who is white, mostly focused on the religious commitments to combatting poverty: with church groups returning repeatedly to the Gulf Coast, he described New Orleans as “converting ground” for a generation of “new abolitionists” committed to eradicating global poverty, which they believe is the “new slavery.”  (He also spoke earlier this week to 200 evangelicals in Boston, which I found particularly fascinating.)  The other panelists - Latino/a and African-American - took on the issues of the a) black/brown divide, especially as it concerns economic opportunity and neighborhood violence; b) coalitional possibilities among African-Americans and Latinos, c) tremendous voter participation and mobilization within these two broad ethnic categories; d) rural versus urban poverty; e) economic mobility for immigrants versus native-born minority groups, and f) immigration policy. 

The entire panel urged the audience to continue fostering positive social change at the community level, to continue to build what many consider to be a progressive, grassroots movement for economic and social equity in the 21st century, and to never cease the “forceful agitation” against the fat cats in D.C. in pressing for social change.  Elections, said Gonzalez, are always “opportunities” for change, but nonetheless are “blunt instruments” for making change.  Most of them advocated for small steps versus big solutions, butalso called for, as Dr. Ross put it, a “transformational frame around poverty,” versus our current “transactional frame around services” that incites fear of tax increases and the free riding of the undeserving poor. 

The final session was a feedback forum for attendees to talk about what worked and didn’t at the conference.  A major critique that I also heard during a specific session on reducing poverty was that the topic was effectively framed as a problem exclusive to African-Americans and Latino groups.  An Asian/Pacific Islander (AIPA) immigrant and native born AIPA both publicly called for greater attention to poverty among all racial-ethnic groups, pointing out that between 20-30% of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are AIPA, and that in places like Minnesota, for instance, poor whites are a major target of anti-poverty activism.  There was also a call for greater youth mentorship as Civil Rights activists passed the torch to a new generation of leaders, criticism of the absence of tenants’ voices from panels on housing, and making race, class and poverty more explicit topics of concern for progressive researchers. 

As Mayor Otis Johnson of Savannah, GA put it, anti-poverty and development activists need “specific [analyses] of people and place” in order to develop strategies and initiatives that appropriately respond to geographically diverse “pecking order[s] of social mobility” in the U.S. (Mayor Johnson also described his political philosophyas one of “incremental radicalism,” which I think describes mine too.)

Drinking all of this in against the backdrop of our current election, the frivolity of shouting at each other on-line is stark.  Panelists refrained from primary partisanship, and even took pains to consider our options under a future President McCain, sticking to a general discussion of what our “righteous work” (thanks Tavis) looks like going forward under any of the three major candidates.

Because, as Wallis put it, “Washington [D.C.] is the last place movements hit.”  Folks in D.C. think “history moves through them,” but “history does not bear this out.”  It is the grassroots that matter.

So campaign for your candidate, even preach (to the unconverted!) why you believe in them, but really consider what they can do for us, and how they can facilitate or empower our “righteous work.”  We cannot let our energy and passion die on November 5, 2008.  Hell, it’s just another Wednesday in the never ending struggle for positive social change. 

(Or, some primary season pop psychologizing; this post is a work-in-progress)

In the wake of Clinton’s tremendous wins this week, rising up in the blogosphere are a few voices pushing back on the notion that this happened in part because she went “negative.”  (Personally, I find Obama’s subtle, dismissive vocabulary of “I guess” and “apparently” used to qualify her wins just as offensive as some find her 3am phone call ad.)  Most of these contrarian voices say one or two things: a) that’s scarcely negative compared to what the Dem nominee will and has faced in the general election, and b) Toughen up, for Christ’s sakes.  This is politics.

I can’t really understand the broader appeal of Obama’s unity message.  Some guy in the cocktail line at Clinton’s victory party in TX said to me, “I thought everyone your age was supporting Obama.”  I said, “they are!” and furthered that I thought it was their “idealism.”  As he put it, “that isn’t a bad thing.”  Hell, I wish I were not so jaded.  What I’m thinking of in this post is the lefty consensus that Clinton is too competitive and too aggressive and too mean to the *real* candidate.  Layered on to this is how many media/blog personalities apparently hate what is actually a marvelous competition in the Democratic primary.

Both candidates are improving and benefitting from such a close race.  So are their supporters, who are similarly energized by the competition.  I’ve experienced first hand the amazing passion of Clinton supporters, who allegedly pale in comparison to Obama supporters.  The truth is that Clinton and Obama are running similarly strong, record-breaking campaigns.  Contrary to on-line wisdom, most Dems love the both of them, and the popular vote is incredibly close.  This two candidates are pretty evenly matched, and we should have a grudging respect for both of them. This race is a gift, and we should be so happy to have so many choices. 

I hear anecdotally around the web all the time that fellow bloggers and writers share some of my qualities, such as introversion or a preference for the written over the spoken word.  I have always lived on the edge of the crowd: whether it was reading on a couch in the middle of countless relatives as a kid or being the only non-Jew in a tight-knit group of Jewish college roommates.  This doesn’t make me any less a part of either of these groups; what it does indicate is that I require a little distance, whether spatially or culturally, so I can retreat into my head for periods of time.  I don’t consider myself shy, but other bloggers have described themselves as such.

The other thing about blogging for me is that narcissism is involved.  While part of it is certainly a release, a need to write as an emotional and cognitive process, it’s also the case that I think people should be reading what I have to say.  That my opinions matter, and should be instructive for others.  Why else would I make it public?

It seems to me that this whining over negativity and a corresponding fear of competition is coming from a group of people that should be analyzed for their tendencies toward opting out of mainstream social interaction and group experience, because we didn’t fit in for one internal or external reason or another.  If other bloggers possess a similar mix out there of my introversion and narcissism, then it is little wonder we’re all tearing each other to pieces on a regular basis over our preferred candidate.  Add to this that bloggers are not beholden to external codes of impartiality, distance or objectivity; we think we know what we’re talking about, that what that is is valuable (despite only few having been rewarded our rightful financial desserts! heh), and so the rest of y’all might as well F-off.  (Unless you agree with me, of course.) 

“Going negative,” contrary to utopian notions of rising above the fracas, are a reality of winning. (Hell, it’s a little hypocritical on all our parts to castigate Clinton for unseemly behavior when that’s all we can seem to dish out on-line.)  It’s incredibly difficult to opt out of the battle alone; to some, Obama’s attempt to be above it all comes across as arrogant and removed.  (While there is a racial insinuation here of the uppity Negro, there’s also the blatant anti-elitism we have in this nation.  One reason I avoid pro-Clinton sites like the nutty, security-oriented No Quarter blog is because of it’s pro-working-class anti-elitism, which leaves MIT-educated working-class-born me feeling like I should be ashamed of my education.)  So although Sen. Obama trying to run a different campaign is commendable, it’s more likely to succeed if all the Dem candidates had gotten together prior to map out the agreed upon rules of the game.  I know, such a lofty notion!  FWIW, I don’t think either campaign has gotten particularly ghastly, and I also think this tit-for-tat we’re engaging in on-line of which candidate is the bigger a**hole is ridiculous.  For every shot Clinton allegedly fires, there’s a camp who believes Obama also holds a smoking gun.  

Reality tv and welfare retrenchment and free market sloganeering all indicated to me that as a nation we dig competition, particularly unfair fights.  Now, I know that my blogosphere is decidedly to the left on at least social and economic policy (if not tv programming), but I’m surprised that our allegedly communal zeal for regulation, big government and fair trade somehow means that Obama is the clear heir to nomination.  One thing that has Clinton supporters fired up is the not-so-tacit suggestion that we are somehow illegitimate.  Given that generally women, Latinos, the elderly and the lower-middle- and working-class voters favor her, whereas younger people and African-Americans favor Obama, this election bickering is a shallow yet dangerous play on very real divisions across different groups who have been marginalized, oppressed or disenfranchised in one way or another in society.  It’s kinda all fun-and-games on the web, but after being at a conference on equity and justice for the last 2 days, and doing this kind of work for a living, and campaigning for Clinton with a very diverse group earlier this week, I’m both more dismissive and more frustrated by the hating than ever. 

As I’ve made clear here, I’m speaking to a mainly Internet phenomenon among people who may prefer the anonymity and arms-length communication mode available on-line versus in real life.  But, again, if they’re as introspective as I am, and as much of a frustrated, misunderstood genius as Napoleon Dynomite and me, then I fear we’re all carrying an unreasonable degree of resentment and hostility around when we should be working together to win elections and push forward our socio-political agendas.  Or at least respecting one another’s different paths. 

I’ve said it before, in different ways: Quit badgering me and let Sens. Clinton and Obama know how you feel about their political behavior, beliefs and plans.  I happen to like my candidate, as well as yours, and the majority of their different supporters that I know.

I am really sunburnt.  Even my fingers are sunburnt.  But not my eyes; I look like a raccoon from wearing shades all day in the hot San Antonio sun.  (Special thanks to the Obama supporter who lent me some sunblock, which I re-applied far too late in the day.)

But it was DAMN WORTH IT - Viva Clinton, who won Ohio, RI, and TEXAS tonight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

I am quoting Rep”>Rep. Delia Garcia (D-KS) in the title of this post, the first  Latina and youngest woman ever elected to the KS legislature.  She spoke briefly at Clinton’s victory party tonight in San Antonio - she’d traveled to the state to stump for HRC - to our crowd of majority Latino/a volunteers.  I’ve probably said this before, but I really think being a Red Sox fan (through ‘04 anyway) offers special training for the kind of close victory we experienced tonight in TX.  The enormous camraderie with fellow underdogs, the absolute elation in pulling ahead and coming to the brink, and the inability to truly relax until that ball is in Manciewixzcjghz’s glove and Foulke is in his arms.  D’oh!  Wrong image.

I have 2 pictures left on my disposable digital camera with me here in San Antonio, and I can’t wait to finish the roll and get the photos up on-line.  What an amazing 48 hours, and what a tremendous outcome.  At the heavily Latino precinct where I volunteered until 8:00 tonight, folks waited hours to participate in the evening caucuses, in part because the line to vote in the primary was so long.  A Latino dad drove up to the polling station in the late afternoon in his mini-van covered in Clinton signs, with his 2 daughters and wife.  He and his young teen girls sported similar Dallas Cowboys regalia, and the daughters held signs and cheered for Clinton while he shouted in English and Spanish into a bullhorn why passing drivers should support the Senator.  Eventually a cop came and told him to relocate - the bullhorn, unlike signs, requires further distance from the polling station - but it was a trip while it lasted.

When my fellow local volunteers finally arrived at Clinton’s victory party tonight, around 11 pm, they reported that the 3 precincts caucusing at our polling station awarded Clinton 21 delegates to Obama’s 2.  I heard multiple stories from other local caucuses where Obama didn’t even meet the threshold to receive any delegates, and Clinton took them all.  The crowd at the victory party erupted over and over and over tonight - when CNN exit polls showed 62% of TX Latinos supported Clinton, when Clinton first pulled ahead of Obama, when Ohio was called, when Clinton spoke in Ohio, whenever CNN showed that map of Texas and all the areas in the South that supported her (especially San Antonio), on and on and on and on.  So many reasons to celebrate.

Local and out-of-state volunteers alike kept talking about meeting up again in Pennsylvania.  I think it’s a must.  (Here’s hoping some of you all will join us!)  The nun I keep mentioning in these field posts told me she works with Mexican immigrants in Omaha, many of whom are undocumented and at risk for deportation.  She told us a particularly painful anecdote of a young mother getting deported and leaving 3 young American-born children behind, one not even a toddler.  This mom had come illegally to the country at age 2, and was now being sent back to Mexico, where she knew no one.  Sr. Ana really believes in Clinton because she thinks Clinton will deal humanely with the problems and complexities of immigration in this country.  I heard several times from others how much they similarly believe in Clinton.

Me, I trust no politicians, nor do I feel personally connected to any of them, as others over the last 48 hours have described feeling to Sen. Clinton, Pres. Clinton, and JFK, Jr. (of all people).  But damn! I was completely moved by the image of a woman on the big screen in that ballroom tonight, celebrating her win in Ohio and promising to keep fighting her way through this race.  Later in the bathroom a reporter who first apologized for not being impartial quoted her grandmother in saying to never count out a woman who is down, and the rest of us agreed enthusiastically. 

In the last 48 hours I’ve had the new pleasure to campaign in a Latino region, to work with straight women and men; lesbians, gay men and transgendered supporters; white, black, Latino and Asian volunteers; and campaign participants of all ages and abilities.  Honestly, it was f***ing awesome.  AND WE WON.

Cross-posted at The Hillary 1000.

See here for my recap of campaigning for Clinton in San Antonio.  I’m not sure what else might bring me to this city, but it sure was a treat tonight to spy a CNN reporter prepping outside the Alamo for what is surely the 8,999 story on why Clinton is a goner at any given moment.  Personally, I much prefer sociologist Manuel Castells cautioning me to “Remember the witches!” when I think about the significance of Sen. Clinton’s presidential campaign.

I arrived here last night; I depart on Wednesday.  Tomorrow is the TX primary/caucus chaos bonanza, where “vote early, vote often” is the mantra.  I am staying with a lovely Hispanic couple that is deeply religious and enthusiastically committed to Sen. Clinton.  I have a cab driver from Guinea that was the first of at least four people to ask me what happened that MA went for Clinton after Kennedy et al.’s endorsement.  Apparently, the Kennedy mystique and significance burns more brightly beyond the borders of Massachusetts.  Explaining to people that Ted’s opinion is not especially relevant and is rightly treated with suspicion by proper skeptical Massholes seems like an insufficient answer to the question.  Hell, I wish I knew why he, Kerry and Patrick found it necessary to go all out for Obama.

I phone banked, held a sign at an intersection, and assembled signs for the Clinton campaign all day. I tooled around with a retired grocery exec from Northern CA and a Latina nun from Nebraska.  I took in San Antonio’s Riverwalk but managed to find a much cooler spot for drinks and dinner a couple blocks away on Houston St.  (Probably the main drag of the old downtown - much more appealing than the Riverwalk for out of towners desiring some semblance of authenticity and history.)  The Alamo reminded me of Mt. Rushmore in that it was much smaller than I expected.  A plaque in front of it reprises some dying words from one of the Texas patriots.  At the risk of being inappropriately sardonic, may I say it seemed to me a foreshadow of nativism to come as it began with some complaint of being surrounded by Mexicans.   

During dinner I chatted with two entrepreneurs on either side of me at the bar - in town for a retail convention - about politics.  Both were gracious and interesting, with one a strong Clinton supporter from Northern Michigan, and the other a political agnostic and Republican from Orange County, CA.  Given I’ve worked for years with entrepreneurs, we were able to find common, cordial ground about the primary campaign and politics and policy more generally, without me having to lose any ideological ground.  I enjoyed it immensely.

After they departed, I was alone at the bar with three old white dudes, on who irony is long lost.  After eavesdropping on their conversation about McCain (if only he were Newt, they lamented), their own virility, and Vietnam, I was eventually enjoined by one of them in discussion.  Two were from Chicago, and the guy on the end expressed sympathy for Clinton that she couldn’t beat that “pipsqueak” who did nothing in the IL state senate but “sit in the back and smoke cigarettes.”  As he criticized her moves and strategy, I countered several times that I thought she’d done many of those things.  He loudly told me she hadn’t, and frequently cut me off with his own enthusiastic barstool quarterbacking.  When he got to the MSNBC debate, which he watched for “10 minutes,” and criticized her again for failing to make her case against Obama, I ironically noted that perhaps she had difficulty given she kept getting cut off when trying to deliver her message.  In all seriousness, he told me that wasn’t the case, and continued to harp on her. 

The conversation derailed further when one of his dinner companions told me Clinton was a lesbian, though improved immeasurably given this exchange:

Me: “of course, because all strong women are lesbians and man-hating.”

Buffoon closest to me: “Are you a lesbian?”

Buffoon farthest from me: “It’s ok though, because guys love lesbians.”

Me: “All lesbians?  I thought men liked only hot lesbians.  Or will any old dyke do?”

They were momentarily stymied, and shortly thereafter I took my exit.

I love dining alone at the bar!!  (Seriously, I do.)

I loathe this man.  Read on.

With 8 days until the March 4 primaries, this is how I feel. Exhausted of the he said/she said. Tired of sifting through the various charges leveled at candidates, campaigns, their supporters, the media, bloggers, at me. A week ago I was fired up - This is participatory democracy! - and NYC Weboy and I laughed about how the blogs need a mediator to keep the place civilized. I was spending all day on the web, and at one point exchanged emails with a dear friend of mine about the rise of social isolation in contemporary society and how I am one of those people who have *traded* face-to-face interaction for virtual socializing.This dear friend, a young black woman married and raising an interracial child, has so far been a voice of reason for me in this campaign. While the clunky media-driven debate over “Race v. gender” has raged for months, searching greedily for The Biggest Loser between our two Dem candidates, she said to me in an email that this has been her “dream” primary - she’s supporting Obama, but would have happily supported Clinton. With Obama she gained a role model for her daughter and theoretical future sons, but she got teary at both Obama’s “Yes We Can” and Clinton’s “This One’s for the Girls” videos. This friend is who I think of when I see The Obamas grace three magazine covers in one week (he on The Economist and US News, and Michelle on Newsweek) and am struck by how cool and overdue that is for this nation. It is her that I think of when I feel pride watching these two candidates share the debate stage and make the Democratic Party look great. And it is this friend who I am now pulling into the blogosphere, at her own peril.

Because now this my lovely friend is spending more time than usual on-line, discovering for herself how f***ing obnoxious so many of the blog comment threads are about the candidates. And my experiments in consciousness-raising here at The RP suddenly feel especially unpleasant. I’m taking her down with me! Oh No!

My support for Clinton has origins in her qualifications for the Presidency - she’s the smartest and the realistic best the Dems have to offer, I think, and her gender firmly pushes me into her camp. But I don’t think I’m alone when I say that her candidacy has taken on a whole new level of meaning for me, divorced from the candidate. This has become a fight for me about gender equity, a battle I’ve long waged, whether aggressively or sometimes just silently in my head. I feel like I’m fighting for Clinton in honor of my mother and her peers, in honor of the women’s lives I’ve had the privilege to study for school, and for myself and my and my peers’ future. Watching the attacks on Clinton this primary season has unleashed an anger in me that I’d either been ignoring or resisting until now, one that I’m hoping will last for the rest of my life.

The problem is that Clinton - of course - is not a perfect candidate on which to mount my fight for justice. No single woman would be; the fight to reduce oppression and domination of women is a battle to be waged across campaigns, political and economic and social structures, and on behalf of and with a range of activists committed to social equity.

The meta-narrative of this campaign, and electoral politics more generally, have pretty much prohibited such a coalitional struggle, as the false choice between the “black man and the white woman” exploits and reinforces the already fragile relationships between activists representing different social groups and struggles. As a Clinton supporter, in the time and space available to me in my current on- and off-line life, I’ve sacrified depth of analysis about this race for qualified support of my candidate. I say qualified because most everything I post in her favor is casually vetted and posted at a deliberately partisan site for other Clinton supporters. I’ve characterized this site as a safe space that I think legitimately has its place here in the ’sphere. And I love being a part of it.

But I cannot stress enough that this Clinton support is not my politics as usual. The reason I rarely get fired up about elections or candidates is because I think politicians are pretty much all the same, and the system is set up such that their self-interest always comes first. I believe that to get things done you need to be willing to negotiate with a pretty varied range of people and groups, and that conflict (versus violence) is fundamental and necessary, and difference is to be tolerated and embraced, not suppressed. I think change comes incrementally, due to a variety of intertwined external and internal pressures, including movement politics, protest, behind-the-scenes deal-making, and policymaking.

Clinton and Obama both represent different pieces of the scenario I just described. They comprise different coalitions of voters, different tactics (between them and within their campaigns) to land the nomination, different narratives of how they’ll lead, different leadership styles, yet very similar political positions and stances across a wide range of issues that matter to various voters. Neither of them will really change our power to influence the system, regardless of how much both camps of supporters believe they will (beyond the diffuse and thrilling symbolic empowerment many of us will feel should our preferred candidate take that oath in January). Only we can do that, and once either of them is in office, both become more representative than they are now of all the legislative, regulatory, distributive, and participatory changes we need in our government.

What has been a real loss for me this campaign is how divergent I feel from my usual stances of a) trying to better understand the intersectionality of various forms of oppression that women, people of color, LGBT, and others feel, and b) fighting for greater anti-poverty policy and equity in the U.S. I don’t believe that loss would be vindicated by participating in the Obama campaign either. What I’m hoping is that at the end of this primary, rather than tripping over deepened gendered, ethno-racial, sexist and classist divides, our mutual desire to heal our (re-) opened wounds is stronger than ever.

After Hurricane Katrina, there was a national outcry for an honest conversation about the persistence of racial and economic inquity in the U.S. Some folks actually began that conversation, picking up where they left off before the storm struck, and are still talking and agitating to this day. May the 2008 Presidential elections leave us with a similar mandate, and may more of us engage with it than the many-but-still-too-few who are fighting for justice in the Gulf Coast now.

Because just like Katrina evacuees in TX, all of us matter well beyond March 4, November 4, and January 20, 2009. Pretty soon Clinton or Obama or even McCain will be behind the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’ll still be sitting here at our desks, in our cars, on the bus, or behind the counter. Staring down the same old shit.

Over at The Hillary 1000, Donna Darko offers an (as promised) depressing summary of the sexism rampant in the election.  One culprit she doesn’t address directly is the MSM, though their shenanigans have been documented extensively by fellow bloggers. 

Well, as I posted over in H1K comments, here at the Cinci airport, I just watched a commercial for CNN where they trumpeted their diversity (as in their range of global news coverage and topics).  To demonstrate their depth and breadth in appealing to all corners of humanity with their hard-hitting journalism, they paraded 5 different MALE faces across the screen.

Of course.  This makes sense, you know, because all women hate politics.  We, after all, spend all our time watching Lifetime and HGTV and WE and Oxygen and HSN. 

Though perhaps the commercial is prescient.  After this election cycle, dudes may be the only folks left watching CNN, MSNBC, and their ilk.

Part 35.  (Because why always tear myself down?  So unbecoming.)

A Slate columnist applied the Myers Briggs personality type tests to the three presidential candidates.  Turns out Clinton and McCain are common presidential personalities; Obama, he’s more of a movement leader.  Sometimes these articles just write themselves.

So, rather than go to bed at a reasonable hour last night, I knew I needed to immediately discover my own personality type.  Using a free on-line version of the test, I discovered I’m a INTJ: Introverted / Intuitive / Thinking / Judging, with Intuitive traits comprising the majority and Introverted and Judging making up the bulk of the remainder.  Sounds about right. 

Apparently, INTJ’s are Masterminds, comprising less than 1% of the population (think Nietsche, Stephen Hawking, Eisenhower, Keynes, and Ayn Rand).  Here’s the excerpts that both ring true to my ear, and are my leadership qualities, despite my amazing capacities for sitting on my couch in my pj’s not engaging with the world for hours on end:

Entailing or contingency planning is not an informative activity, rather it is a directive one in which the planner tells others what to do and in what order to do it. As the organizing capabilities the Masterminds increase so does their inclination to take charge of whatever is going on.

…there is one attitude that sets them apart from other Rationals: they tend to be much more self-confident than the rest, having, for obscure reasons, developed a very strong will.

Being very judicious, decisions come naturally to them; indeed, they can hardly rest until they have things settled, decided, and set [like this primary, for ex!!]. They are the people who are able to formulate coherent and comprehensive contingency plans, hence contingency organizers or “entailers.”

Natural leaders, Masterminds are not at all eager to take command of projects or groups, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once in charge, however, Masterminds are the supreme pragmatists, seeing reality as a crucible for refining their strategies for goal-directed action. In a sense, Masterminds approach reality as they would a giant chess board, always seeking strategies that have a high payoff, and always devising contingency plans in case of error or adversity [I do this nightly, as the hours pass and I fail to sleep, I reorganize the coming day to reflect how much energy and time I’ll have].

On the other hand, Masterminds can be quite ruthless in implementing effective ideas, seldom counting personal cost in terms of time and energy. [This is why I surround myself with emotional people!!]

Self-confidence; a willingness to make decisions; an analytical, organizing mind; and an ability and willingness to course-correct (one of my fave corporate buzzphrases) as we go along. Yep; yep; yep; and yep.

What’s your personality type?  Please submit all reports to my desk by 10am Monday morning, when I’ll next be on-line.  Family duties call this weekend.  Why not hang with my fellow bloggers Donna Darko and Pocochina over at The Hillary 1000 while I’m gone? 

I’ve written extensively here about my Obama skepticism.  Quotes like this don’t endear me to the man either.

From the February 25th issue of People, in “25 Questions for Barack Obama”:

Q: What was your best effort for Valentine’s Day?

A: Interesting question.  [Pause.] I’m so good to her in so many ways, no one gesture of undying love really stands out.

I really hope he was being facetious. The M.A.S. is a phenomenal partner, but if he ever uttered something like this, I’m pretty sure I’d be waiting with my “Need for Improvement” checklist when he got home that night.  But maybe that’s just me.

There’s some other comments in the piece, such as the first legislation he hopes to sign as President is “health care for all Americans,” that his last splurge was a birthday necklace for his wife that “wasn’t fake,” that she reminds him everyday that he is “not a perfect man” (though he has the “wisdom” to say she has “no flaws”), that he misses “anonymity” the most from his past life (though this Newsweek piece on Michelle Obama suggests otherwise - and also, in my opinion, does her less justice as a kickass independent woman than this NYT piece), and that he’d most like to meet Springsteen because he seems like a “good person.” 

I realize this is a People article, and that all the MSM links I’ve provided here deliberately paint - per the joint wisdoms of the campaigns and the publications - certainy portraits of the candidates, but honestly, someone should explain the concept of “modesty” to Sen. Obama.*

*Thank you for joining me in this latest edition of The RP’s Pot Kettle Black Politics.

Cross-posted at The Hillary 1000.

This is vile.

In case any Democrats and/or feminists missed the memo, no matter the nominee, we’ve got a serious fight on our hands.

Still I believe.

Part 1,000,000.

Because I’m known for better and worse for my honesty, and no doubt I’d end up saying legitimate but incendiary things like Michelle Obama’s I’m finally proud of my country remark. 

(And like Barack Obama, I could quite possibly spring onto the national scene as the latest golden child [if my prior jobs are any indication], but unlike Obama, ultimately alienate everyone for insisting on doing things my own way, and losing my temper and telling one too many people off - cue McCain here.  Also like Obama, some of the *friends* I’ve made along my radical-pragmatic way will surely come back to bite me in the a**.)

Though I’ve enjoyed the solidarity of the blogs of other Clinton supporters in the last couple weeks, I disagree strongly with the scornful responses of several of them to Ms. Obama’s comments about her national pride (one post has already been pulled).  First of all, the theoretical beauty of our country is that we are free to express disappointment, pride, anger, faith or any level of investment in our nation, its leaders, our fellow residents, etc.  Secondly, if case anyone missed the Democratic primary meme, the issues of race, gender, identity, privilege, and social difference have been front and center this season.  While the media would have us believe that black women are the epitome of our national struggle between voting with our skin or our vaginas (or our default hatred of either), of course the choice between candidates runs much deeper for most of us.  Policies matter, past and present performance matters, personal histories matter, associations matter, constituencies matter, perceptions matter.  The symbolic choice of Clinton v. Obama represents two sides of the same cultural coins, to name a few: rewarding hard work, experience and preparedness versus renewing our faith in the American Dream; playing it safe (middle-class conservatism) versus entrepreneurial risk-taking; or challenging the patriarchy versus the legacy of slavery.

It’s this last scheme that provides the greatest context through which to interpret Ms. Obama’s comments vis-a-vis the white women who have leapt to critize her here.  Just as women have repeatedly argued (see comments) during this campaign’s on-going Hillary Sexism Watch ™ that men are not in a position to set the parameters of what constitutes sexism, neither should white folks feel free to chastise an African-American woman’s pride in her country.  The truth is that our shared history of slavery splits our country in a crude but material fashion.  White women who criticize Ms. Obama for her remarks, no matter their own experiences of oppression as females in the U.S., do not share with her the specific cultural history of slavery and the on-going experience of being a person of color in a country that has never reconciled our brutal and violent past built on on the backs of those women and men. 

(more…)

I’ve updated my blogroll, especially the Politics category, but also some overdue additions in my Feminist links.  Check ‘em out.  Introduce yourself.  Make friends.

I’m spending some time with the fam this evening (currently blocking one of my mom’s dogs from the box of Cheez-its beside me as I type), and will be back tomorrow.  In the meantime, here’s some links to what I’m reading:

On-line:

Who Represents the Progressive Movement?

Periodically Speaking;

Count WHOSE Vote?;

“White” Like Who?;

and

Generation Gap.

Off-line:

The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears;

The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao;

Bargaining for Brooklyn: Community Organizations in the Entrepreneurial City;

and Justice & the Politics of Difference.

Happy reading.

The original post is here.

To reinforce my point that the ire of this primary season is getting totally out of hand, I, blogger un-extraordinaire, got my first hate mail today.  It came after I commented on Ezra’s posts (links below), which I’ve reprinted here:

Ezra,

I’m surprised by this post from you. You’ve been pretty equinimical (sp? word?) thus far.

My reading of this MI/FL debacle is so different, and both campaigns are gunning for it to come out in their favor (obviously) - Obama’s caucus suggestion, anyone?

MyDD has a post today about how it’s the FL/MI politicians who are, again obviously, campaigning to have their votes count. Few seem to be covering this fiasco from the perspective of the states; it’s only one campaign’s shenanigans versus the others.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/13/223556/592

The email is as follows:

What does rationalizing and making lame excuses for people who are blatantly unethical and dishonest make you?  Answer?  A pathetic ass.

Have a nice day!

Amazing. 

Moving on.

I’m blown away by another campus shooting.  No words.

I’ll be back in calmer times with some thoughts.