...Chienne Précoce...

Tears to Remember

Judith Warner of the NYTimes Domestic Disturbances blog wrote one of the best post-election pieces I’ve read so far. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

On Wednesday, Nov. 5, 1980, my 10th-grade American history teacher started class by unfurling The New York Times. She pointed to its triple banner headline: “Reagan Easily Beats Carter; Republicans Gain in Congress; D’Amato and Dodd are Victors.”

“Save this paper,” she told us. “This is the start of a whole new era.”

And it was. An era of unbridled deregulation, wealth-enhancing perks for the already well-off, and miserly indifference to the poor and middle class; of the recasting of greed as goodness, the equation of bellicose provincialism with patriotism, the reframing of bigotry as small-town decency.

In short, it was the start of our current era. The Reagan Revolution was the formative political experience of my generation’s lifetime, like the Great Depression, the Second World War or Vietnam for those before us. And in its intellectual and moral paucity, in its eventual hegemony, these years shut down, for some of us, the ability to fully imagine another way.

I will admit that back in January, when Barack Obama, in his post-Iowa victory speech, spoke about the “cynics,” the “they” who said “this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,” he was talking about me.

I will admit that the call of “change” did not speak to me as an achievable goal.

Until it actually came.

On Wednesday, there was a run on newspapers, as voters rushed to grab a tangible piece of the history they’d made. My husband Max and I, unable to find extra copies, brought our own worn papers home to 8- and 11-year-old Emilie and Julia.

Sept. 11, the seismic event that we’d feared would forever form their political consciousness, shaping their world and constricting the boundaries of the possible, had actually been eclipsed, light blotting out darkness, the best of America at long last driving away the demons of fear. We wanted them to see that it was the end of an era.

“Look,” we said, pointing to the headline “Racial Barrier Falls.” “This is huge.”

We labored to make them understand that their world — art that day, and orchestra, and Baked Potato Bar at lunch — had irrevocably changed.

But how can you understand change when you’ve only known one way of being?

They were happy because we were happy. They rose to the occasion in that bemused way children do when adults tell them what they should feel. They were glad to be rid of George W. Bush and to be saved – for now – from the specter of Sarah Palin. (“It is not O.K. to say she’s an ‘idiot,’” I had snapped when they came home from school stoked by the mob. “Prove your case. Show, don’t tell.”)

They’d had, like many D.C. children, more than their share of politics. After first following the country into battle against the all-purpose boogeyman Saddam Hussein, they’d become antiwar. They had opinions on tax policy and spoke angrily about the “wealth gap.” In the past election year, they’d been fired up about the woman thing, in all its pretty girl versus smart girl iterations; in fact, they and their friends had remained hard-core Hillaryites long after their moms had moved on.

But the race thing? The groundbreaking immensity of the election of our country’s first African-American president?

“You’re being racist,” Emilie had said when I made a comment about how particularly earth-moving this election was for black voters. “Why should it matter if people are black or white?”

Theirs has often looked to me like a world drained of meaning. Girl power put to the service of selling Hannah Montana. Feel-good inclusiveness that occulted the very real conflicts, crimes and hatreds of history.

It isn’t easy to let go of the past to embrace something new, to risk heartbreak on the chance of the world’s actually having changed.

Or at least, it hasn’t been easy for me. But it comes naturally to some. Like the hundreds of George Washington University students who gathered in front of the White House on Tuesday night, cheering and screaming and shouting their goodbyes to the political era of their youth.

“Bliss it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven,” Max emailed me, paraphrasing William Wordsworth on the French Revolution, at 11:30 p.m. on election night, after leaving his desk to walk among the revelers downtown. I, home with the kids, was in bed, sleeping the drugged sleep of an alcohol-abstaining migraineuse after drinking half a glass of celebratory champagne.

Colin Powell did not dance for joy over Obama’s victory; he wept.

“Look what we did. Look what we did,” he said, puffy-faced, red-eyed, fighting back more tears on CNN. “He’s won. It’s over.”

David Dinkins was similarly solemn. “Things do change. There is a God. They do get better,” said the mayor who presided over New York City at a time of toxic racial tensions.

Obama, too, resisted giddy gladness on Tuesday night. But he did proclaim an end to the world as we’ve known it for far too long.

“To those who would tear the world down: we will defeat you,” he promised. “This is our moment. This is our time.”

The glory of Barack Obama is that there are so many different kinds of us who can claim a piece of that “our.” African-Americans, Democrats, post-boomers, progressives, people who rose from essentially nowhere and through hard work and determination succeeded beyond their parents’ wildest dreams are the most obvious.

But there are also people who respect intelligence and good grammar. People who see their spouse as their “best friend,” as Barack called Michelle on Tuesday night. People whose children have the same knowing look as Sasha and Malia, who are probably more excited about their puppy than about their father’s presidency.

Two images will forever stay in my mind to mark this epoch-breaking Election Day. One is that of Jesse Jackson’s face, drenched in tears, in Chicago’s Grant Park on Tuesday evening.

And the other is a photo that ran in The Times on Wednesday. In it, a black mother and daughter sit on the floor of a church in Harlem. The mother, Latrice Barnes, having heard of Obama’s victory, is doubled up in tears; her daughter, Jasmine, is reaching a tentative hand up to soothe her. To me, she looks like the future, reaching out to heal the past.

It is, I suppose, in part a matter of temperament, whether one shouts or weeps at happy transformative moments. But I also think it’s a matter of what has come before. The young people joyfully frolicking in front of the Bush White House never knew the universe whose passing was marked by Obama’s victory and Jackson’s tears.

This moment of triumph marks the end of such a long period of pain, of indignity and injustice for African-Americans. And for so many others of us, of the trampling and debasing of our most basic ideals, beliefs that we cherished every bit as deeply and passionately as those of the “values voters” around whose sensibilities we’ve had to tiptoe for the past 28 years.

The election brought the return of a country we’d lost for so long that it was almost forgotten under the accumulated scar tissue of accommodation and acceptance.

For me, this will be the enduring memory of election night 2008: One generation released its grief. The next looked up confusedly, eager to please and yet unable to comprehend just what the tears were about.

Thank you, Judith, for a great, great piece.

Some post election thoughts about Palin

I haven’t written on my blog for 2 months.  Ironically, the last post I put up was about Sarah Palin.  Sarah Palin was also a big reason why I stopped posting.  She was such a big part of the election news, but I couldn’t figure out how to write about her, how I felt about her, how to synthesize the jumble of thoughts and emotions  I had that surrounded her selection.  On the one hand, I couldn’t stand her in an intensly visceral way.  She was wrong on so many of the issues, she wasn’t qualified, she was aggressive in all the wrong ways.  On the other hand, I viewed her as a strong female role-model, not necesarily for her actions as the VP nominee, and not because of her policies, but as the most popular governor in the United States of America who came to power by her own means.  It’s rare for a woman - let alone a popular one - to be in politics who wasn’t the wife or daughter of someone in the business (Nancy Pelosi, the highest ranking woman in American office started in politics because her family was; and we all know Hillary Clinton’s political connection).  People criticized Palin for being unqualified for the presidency, should her running mate die while in office, but she didn’t choose to be on the ticket - John McCain put her there, a decision for which I thought he should bear all of the responsibility.

And so I felt in a very odd place:  for the first time that I can remember, I felt like defending someone with whom I share few (if any) policy preferences, ideas, cultural ties, etc.  I wanted to attack her for her politics and what her rise to political power means for feminism,  and yet I wanted to defend her accomplishments as a powerful, independent woman who was doing what any sane politician would do when offered the position to be the vice president of the United States of America.  Defending her infuriated me, attacking her felt wrong, and communicating my convoluted thoughts just didn’t seem to be working.  So… I didn’t write about her.  I posted the rare humorous video and took a break from tumblr and lived life and didn’t participate in conversations about her for the very same reasons.

And now, after election day, someone in the blogosphere has finally posted something about Sarah Palin with which I can completely agree.

Via Jezebel:

Tired of being smeared in the media by disgruntled McCain aides, Sarah Palin took a shot at her critics yesterday, referring to those who have been leaking stories about her spending sprees, “rogue” behavior, and confusion as to whether Africa was a country or a continent as “cruel” and “mean-spirited.” The Governor of Alaska then went on to say this: “It’s immature, it’s unprofessional, and those guys are jerks.” Palin argues that her quotes were taken out of context, and that the clothing scandal is merely a creation of disgruntled McCain staffers that want to throw her under the bus. So does Palin deserve the drubbing she’s been getting in the media? The answer is a bit complicated.

Let’s get this out of the way: we are all sick of hearing about Sarah Palin. She dominated the news cycle during the past two months of the campaign, with everything from her hate-filled rallies to her pregnant daughter to her wardrobe choices finding their way on to the front page of every newspaper in the country. Who is this woman, we asked, where the hell did she come from, and how can we send her back there?

What began as a strong campaign for Palin, with her addition to the ticket boosting McCain’s popularity with disgruntled Clinton supporters and rallying the conservative base, quickly devolved into a wacky politics sideshow: she unraveled on national television in front of Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, two anchors who she should have been able to handle. She came across as unprepared and ignorant, but still maintained millions of fans across the country, who were drawn to her pro-life stance, her folksy huntin’ background, and, of course, her looks and style.

As the McCain campaign sputtered out amidst the economic crisis, Palin’s presence on the ticket was suddenly more curse than blessing; she was blamed for being a drag on the ticket, her approval ratings bottomed out, and Americans began to realize that she would not be ready to take the position of President of the United States, should anything happen to John McCain. Prominent Republicans such as Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel came out against Palin, citing her lack of foreign policy experience as a reason why she was not ready for the job.

And so, on Election Night, we saw Sarah Palin with tears in her eyes, and many of us probably laughed at the screen. She would head back to Wasilla, Alaska, to be greeted by fans at the airport who chanted “2012” as she stepped back into her home territory. The GOP, however, doesn’t seem too pleased about those Palin 2012 plans, piling on the criticism as the McCain campaign is torn to bits by angry former supporters.

It’s extremely easy to laugh at Palin at this point: her ill-preparedness is coming back to get her, and we can all breathe a little easier knowing that our rights, at least for a little while, are in safer hands with the new administration. Throwing Palin under the bus takes the blame off of McCain, though the argument can easily be made that Palin didn’t put herself on the ticket; McCain is more to blame for Palin’s presence on the national stage than Palin herself is.

Yes, Sarah Palin made serious mistakes. Yes, she was a drag on the ticket, due mostly to her own screwups, her inability to answer a damn question, and her extreme-right stances turning off moderates and independents. But to turn John McCain’s nasty campaign on Sarah Palin herself says more about the Senator from Arizona and his staff then it does about the Governor of Alaska.

As Palin’s reputation is torn apart, it’s almost getting difficult to revel in the mudslinging. John McCain is being praised for his “gracious”concession speech, as if 15 minutes of prepared remarks have suddenly wiped away 6 months of all-out nastiness on his behalf, and yet Palin continues to be pummeled by her own former team with rumors of her stupidity, greed, and ambition. McCain didn’t lose because of Sarah Palin; McCain lost because he ran a small, bitter campaign, he didn’t know enough about the economy, and because he listened to Steve Schmidt, who told him to place Palin on the ticket in the first place.

But still: Palin will be the face of McCain’s failures. And though I have no love for Palin, and no respect for her stances on any issues, I can’t help but feel that something is not right here. Even the worst mistakes of Sarah Palin do not negate the fact that she didn’t get here on her own: there are others who deserve the criticism far more than she does.

So, there.  I’ve said it.  I feel sorry for Sarah Palin.  So shoot me.  John McCain lost this on his own.  She may have contributed to the McCain camp’s downward spiral at the end of the election cycle, but she also gave him the only hope of winning he had in a long and tired cycle that Republicans were nearly destined to lose.

Having gotten this “I feel sorry for her” message out of the way, here’s what does irritate me Palin.  Judith Warner of the New York Times wrote: “Palin’s not intimidating, and makes it clear that she’s subordinate to a great man.” Palin, who obviously is incredibly ambitious, masks that ambition behind her PTA placard and “folksy” talk. In the oft-replayed tape from earlier this summer, when asked about the Vice Presidency, Palin notoriously said, ‘“I’m used to bein’ very productive and workin’ real hard in an administration and we want to make sure that that ‘V.P.’ slot would be a fruitful type of position.”

I think what Ms. Warner is dancing around, but not saying outright, is that for a certain kind of feminist, Palin is a symbol for everything we hoped was not true in the world anymore. We hoped that we didn’t have to hide our ambition or pretend that our goals were effortlessly achieved (“I never really set out to be in public affairs, much less to run for this office,” the Governor said when she addressed America at the Democratic National Convention.) We hoped that we could be mothers without having our motherhood be our defining characteristic, as it seems to be for Palin. We hoped that we did not have to be perfect beauty queens to get to where we wanted to be in life, that our looks, good or bad, wouldn’t matter. Whether or not you think it’s appropriate to comment on Palin’s appearance, the fact of her attractiveness exists, and is being used to her advantage by Republican sloganeers (“the hottest Governor in the coldest state,” et. al).

Keith Olbermann called Sarah Palin “Tracy Flick” after her speech at the Republican National Convention, and I don’t think that’s a perfect parallel. Tracy, while completely ruthless (as Palin has shown herself to be so far with that nasty community organizer comment), never hid her ambition behind a polished veneer — it was as plain as the bows in her hair. No, I think the correct high school stereotype for Palin is of the homecoming queen. For many of us looking back at high school, we can now feel a twinge of smug superiority towards the homecoming queen. Sure, she was pretty and popular in high school, catering to the whims of boys and cheering on their hockey/football games, but what happened to her after high school? Often, she popped out some kids and ended up toiling in some not particularly impressive job. We can look back and say, we might have been ambitious nerds in high school, but it ultimately paid off. What’s infuriating, and perhaps rage-inducing, about Palin, is that she has always embodied that perfectly pleasing female archetype, playing by the boys’ game with her big guns, moose-murdering, her subbordinate-to-you [John McCain] facade combined with the closeted ambition she must posess as a sucessful woman in politics… and that she keeps being rewarded for it.

So there are some of my thoughts on Sarah Palin.  I hope that she’s able to go back to Alaska and continue to serve her people.  My fear is that with all that has transpired in the election, Alaskans won’t like her too much any more.  That’s too bad, but that is something for which she is partially responsible.  Part of politics is taking risks.  She took a risk, and it might’ve back fired on the job that she was doing quite well.  Time will tell what’s in store for her now, but I wish her the best… and the worst… from the conflicting parts of my mind and gut.

Well done, Hillary

This wasn’t my favorite Hillary speech (her concession speech on June 7th was, I think, the best of her career so far)… that said, she did exactly what she needed to do here. I’m proud of her, and even though I’m sure she’ll be scruitinized somehow, I think she did everything she could’ve done under less than ideal circumstances. It’s such a difficult task to write and execute a speech like this because there’s such a delicate dance between “I’m still here” and “I back the guy who won.” I also think that Republicans can go back to hating her now… Tonight’s speech was all Democrat, and all amazing.

Ezra Klein writes in this post:

Clinton’s message was simple: Her candidacy was about something, not someone. She is a Democrat, not a Hillaryite. And if her supporters believed in her, then that’s what they were signing up for: An effort to expand health care, and weight economic policy towards the middle class, and refashion American foreign policy into something sane and recognizable. The candidate left in the race with a similar set of beliefs is Barack Obama.

[…]

It wasn’t a speech about Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or even George W. Bush. It was a speech about being a Democrat, and what electing a Democrat will mean for the country. Tonight, she was the party’s standard bearer. And she, and those of her supporters who aren’t using her candidacy as a means to elect John McCain, deserved that.

From Hillary’s speech tonight:

“I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?”

Obama/Biden 2008!

(ps: Bill looked so proud of her - it was really cute. The end.

Read this article in the print version of The New Republic today. It’s really well written, and touches on some observations I’ve made about Obama. I find the “community organizer” part of Obama’s identity to be one of the most fascinating - and I think we can learn a lot about his core values/principles from observing his evolution from a community organizer to the presidential candidate he is today.

Also, kudos to Michelle Obama. Her speech last night made me wish she would be the Obama on the ballot this fall. Apparently, this article was thinking the same thing…

Could the Democrats be about to nominate the wrong Obama?

Well, probably not. But Michelle Obama, Barack’s wife, gave an awfully good speech at the Democratic National Convention here Monday night. While Barack can sometimes soar off into the clouds, Michelle tends to keep things down to earth.

Congrats to her, though. I know that everyone thinks her husband is a great orator, but she made me excited to vote for him more than he ever has with a speech!  (I’ll also admit that I couldn’t help but smile - inside and out - when Barack was onscreen via satilite and started talking with his daughters.  Such a great family…)

I have very mixed feelings about Obama choosing Hillary as VP, but don’t have time to elaborate on them in this post. Maybe later…

Having gotten that out of the way, does anyone else think that there’s a bigger possibility that it’s her than the media is suggesting? The main reason I think it might be her is because he’s making his first appearance with his VP on Saturday in Illinois. True, he announced the start of his campaign in Springfield, but Illinois is also the homestate of Hillary. Coincidence? Or Not…

I do think that choosing Hillary is the smartest thing for Obama to do as far as the fall election is concerned. And if it is between Kaine, Bayh, Biden and Clinton, she’s the only one that would get me to be excited about the ticket. Kaine and Bayh are unacceptable choices to me, and I have no strong feelings (either way) for Biden.

I think he’s going to wait until Saturday to announce his VP choice so that he can have all of the Sunday front pages, Saturday night news, etc. If he does wait until Saturday, I will be very surprised, but not floored, if I see a Unity ticket. I still don’t think it’s very likely that we’ll see a Obama/Clinton 2008 ticket, but time will tell.

(If Obama does choose her, I think that might be why the Obama camp has insisted upon having a roll call vote with Clinton’s name at the Convention).

Rachel Maddow has finally been given her own show. I’m so happy for her, and for all of us who finally get to watch her in her element on a regular basis. Congrats, Rachel!

This article by Salena Zito has a point that is important to make:

Right now, all of the talk is about what Hillary will do at the convention; quite frankly, that undercurrent exists mainly because so much of the political media are bored without her in the race.

“The Clinton drama is gone,” one Democrat insider explains, and political reporters “miss it, and they will look for any grain of sand that might resurrect it.”

There are some other points in the article that I don’t think are wholly true. The point about Obama needing Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio to win - there are other ways he could win the necessary 270, and he has many other electoral routes to get where he needs to be. (Although if he’s not winning M, P and O, I’m skeptical that he’ll be in a place to win Virginia, Colorado, etc).

Digressions aside, I think that any talk painting Hillary as a drama queen (or someone who wants the convention to be all about her) is just made up by the punditry. They [the punditry] want her to be dramatic because they miss her, drama is exciting in this excruciatingly long campaign, and exciting sells (or at least is a little more fun for them to talk about).

My only worry is that what the pundits are saying may eventually be accepted by society at large as the truth. Hillary is doing a great job stumping for Obama, and I’m getting pretty sick of the the pundits referencing one comment she made about what a ‘catharsis’ it would be to have a roll call vote at a California event (where she was stumping for Obama).

Point is, she’s ding a great job stumping for Obama. Even if it is through gritted teeth, she’s doing what needs to be done. Despite the press’ obsession with digging up dirt on Hillary, I hope the dust settles by the time November rolls around and Obama kicks some “maverick” arse.

Also, Frank Rich’s column today is a must read.

And why not include Taylor Marsh’s dig at MoDo, too…

The Republicans are up to no good on energy… again.

Dave Roberts explains it perfectly:  

The right is convinced that drilling is its ace in the hole — enough to reverse declining Republican fortunes, maybe even enough to turn a few elections. They’ve decided the best thing they can do is  a) maximize their demands for drilling and b) block any actual energy legislation so they can c) claim that Democrats’ refusal to drill is responsible for gas prices. It’s utterly and openly mendacious, from top to bottom.

Yesterday on MSNBC I watched Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn rehash the absurd talking points that Republicans are using these days: high gas prices are the fault of Dems, they Dems need to come back from their “vacation” to vote on this issue and pass “energy policy”, etc etc etc.

Why isn’t the media reporting that Republicans in the house have been blocking the crafting of energy legislation?  Why is the media not exposing their political shenanigans?  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out, and yet I’ve seen nothing (so far) that really takes a deeper look at what is going on here.  I just hope that the American people are skeptical of this whole debacle…  otherwise, this could mean trouble for the Dems.

I’m not a fan of the title of this column, but it’s well written and worth reading.

Where’s the Landslide, by David Brooks

Chris Beam has an older (but still hilarious) piece at Slate arguing that the Obama campaign needs to stop complaining about rumors spread e-mail forwards of their own. His suggestions are the best part:

A tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.

Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.

Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It’s upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.

Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American.

Barack Obama’s new airplane includes a conference room, a kitchen, and a MEGACHURCH.

Barack Obama’s skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.

Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.

Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME.

Hillary Clinton’s blog made a guest entry at RH Reality Check on Bush’s latest effort to make a rule that defines “abortion” so broadly that it would apply to birth control and emergency contraception. 

On to Sen. Clinton’s message: 

The Bush Administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before science and women’s health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them “abortion.” These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. We can’t let them get away with this underhanded move to undermine women’s health and that’s why I am sounding the alarm.

These rules pose a serious threat to providers and uninsured and low-income Americans seeking care. They could prevent providers of federally-funded family planning services, like Medicaid and Title X, from guaranteeing their patients access to the full range of comprehensive family planning services. They’ll also build significant barriers to counseling, education, contraception and preventive health services for those who need it most: low-income and uninsured women and men.

The regulations could even invalidate state laws that currently ensure access to contraception for many Americans. In fact, they describe New York and California’s laws requiring prescription drug insurance plans to provide coverage for contraceptives as part of “the problem.” These rules would even interfere with New York State law that ensures survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms.

We’ve seen this kind of ideologically driven move from the Bush Administration before. Senator Patty Murray and I went toe to toe with the Bush Administration to demand a decision on Plan B by the FDA. We won that fight and we need to win this one too.

When I learned about these proposed rules, I immediately joined with Senator Murray to call on the Bush Administration to stop these dangerous plans. I am joining with New York family planning and healthcare advocates to spread the word. Now is the time to raise our voices. I will continue to press HHS and I hope you will join me. I have posted information on how to get involved at www.hillpac.com.

There’s a NY Times article about this as well, if you want to read somthing without Hillary’s name in the byline.  I encourage all of you to sign the petition at the bottom of her entry.  Planned Parenthood also has a petition (the language in their petition is a little funky, but it’s the idea that matters and you can change the text if you want.)  You can sign both petitions, too.