Correctly Impolitic

There are a few things I am afraid I will never understand.  One of them is the economy.  Oh, I get how to spend money and how that helps to keep people employed.  At least I do recognize the importance of shopping.  But when I listened to Paulson, the Secretary of the Treasury, explain the new government reorganization and how much better it’s going to be for everyone.  Admittedly, my eyes glazed over and I had a hard time balancing on the treadmill.  I always try to digest important information while I’m exercising.  I was never one to believe that you had to wait two hours to digest your food before you went swimming.  No, I finished a meal and dove right into to any available water – my life was always sink or swim, never pause and reflect.  But that’s another blog.  This one is about not understanding certain things.

Anyway, I don’t get all the intricacies of how the Fed works, regulation of the stock market,  or — beyond the fact that people borrowed more than they could pay back, how the mortgage crisis happened.  But John McCain says he doesn’t get it either, so I guess it’s OK—although my ignorance will not impact on millions of lives and if he’s elected, his certainly could.

Here’s something else I don’t understand.  Over the past few years there have been thousands of reports of cell phones causing cancer because of the radiation levels.  I get how that could happen.  I believe cell phones can cause brain damage.  Maybe not from cancer but certainly they cause people to act in ridiculous ways.  It’s like a person puts a cell phone to their ear and their brains are immediately sucked out.  They go from perfectly normal to acting like the walking wounded.  They don’t watch when they cross a street, they don’t pay attention when they are driving a car, and they certainly are not courteous about using the phone and intruding on other peoples space and enjoyment, such as in the theater or a movie.   Why would you take your life in your hands (driving,crossing the street, chancing a punch in the nose), to talk to someone while you are doing something else.

And why did Hillary continue to tell her war time story of woe, even after the video tape of what actually happened on that tarmac in Tuzla, was revealed.  Now that was something I didn’t understand.  It was a nice tape.  Dave Vannote her fabulously talented Advance guy gets off, she gets off with Chelsea (who does not talk to the press), they meet and greet some lovely children and then some soldiers and walk with assorted diplomats, calmly to the car.  Here’s what I do understand from having been in on those international communication meetings, the White House never would have sent the First Lady to a location they thought would be life threatening—OK maybe the President would have sent Hillary, but certainly not Chelsea.  But why continue to tell tales long after the truth was revealed.  Surely her campaign people know that there are no local events anymore.  If she says something in Texas the people in Iowa will find out.

Clearly, the media want Hillary out of the race. But I don’t understand.  If the race continues they will have something to talk about—no matter how ludicrous or benign.  All this stuff about how she’s reeking havoc on the Party is nonsense. She is running a campaign.  She has a perfect right to go into every state and try to win delegates. Bill Clinton is right—people need to relax.  And by the way, lest we forget, the best way to keep her in the race as well as to insure a hefty female turnout is to try to tell her what to do.  She has said that she’s staying the course.  I’m not sure I understand why she would submit herself to the ongoing humiliation of the mistakes and losses, but I like the idea that the candidates are being tested and learning something everyday.

Here’s the last thing I don’t understand—at least for today.  Why wouldn’t the Obama staff ask the candidate if he could bowl.  Bowling is not easy.  There’s no reason to assume that everyone can do it.  Has this guy ever been to a bowling alley.  When we were kids we went bowling every weekend and I never bowled above a 150 but even when I was six I bowled more than 37.  Just roll the ball down the lane and you’re bound to get fifty.  When you have ten tries, it’s nearly impossible to score that low.  I mean it’s not Kerry wind surfing, or Dukakis in a helmet, but it was Allentown Pa. where people are serious about competitive bowling.  So I absolutely can’t understand what they were thinking.   Wait, I get it—it’s the whole “he’s charming even in defeat” approach.  Maybe it will work—but I still think I would understand better if he only played three rounds.

Once upon a time there was a princess, a prince, a big bad wolf, and, of course, some serfs.  And a few too many court jesters.  All of this royalty lived in a kingdom that was seriously lacking in leadership, vision, and a sense of the right thing to do.  The Kingdom had a good share of famine and disease,  for which there was no immediate cure, and a war that took the lives of too many young warriors-most of whom were handsome knights from all over the land.  And, in addition to all these problems, their economy sucked.

No one knew what to do. Did I mention the King was a dope and they eventually had to drag him from his throne kicking and screaming about all the important things he had done, and so what if the peasants, farmers, cobblers and hair dressers (yes, there were always hair dressers), were suffering.  They were of no importance to him.  You see he was the arrogant kind of king who did things simply to prove he could, and for the financial benefit of his friends.

The people put out a call to Robin Hood, but alas, he was tied up in another far away Kingdom trying to sort out their problems and, of course, protecting Maid Marian.  So the Prince and the Princess, both of whom wanted the job (it’s nice to be King!), decided to have an election.  But the Big Bad Wolf said that unless he could run as well, he would simply eat them.  What could they do but pick sides and all run against each other.

The contest got very nasty, the jousting dirty and swords were laced with poison.  And believe it or not, the big bad wolf emerged as the only candidate who thought waging war against other lands was fine, but he refused to wage it against the Prince and Princess. Besides, they were so busy killing one another off, that he didn’t have to do anything, but sit back and wait.  Oh my, oh my!

This history lesson was brought to you by a friend of Mickey and Minnie Mouse who was so depressed by anything other than bliss the he bought a condo in Orlando and charged people to come and visit.  The End.

Unfortunately, this Fairy Tale is not unfolding nicely.  But there are certainly lessons to be learned from history, whether they be fact or fable.  In days of yore there was a smart, funny, elegant Prince named Mo Udall, a one eyed Mormon from Utah (although he was Congressman from Arizona), who decided that he could be the leader of the land-as opposed to the leader of the band - that was Dan Fogelberg, may he rest in peace.  Anyway, Mo had neither name recognition nor any money.  But he had a sense of humor beyond compare and he loved kibitzing with the media.  Mo, much like the Father of the country, was incapable of telling a lie.   Sure, he could spin a tale but when it came to a lie — about policy or an opponent - he couldn’t do it.  In return, the press made him their hero, never said anything bad about his campaign, and wrote wonderful stories about how what a great leader he would make.

And so, out of sheer adoration, and without winning any primaries, Mo went to the Convention as a contender for the highest office in the land.  John McCain and Mo Udall were friends.  As the Senior Congressman from Arizona and despite their philosophic and party differences, Mo was always kind and generous to the Junior Senator. They loved and respected one another and when Mo was dying in a Veterans facility John visited him every week.

Senator McCain understood the power of what Mo had done in his campaign and is doing the same in his. And for the present, John McCain is the darling of the press, while his opposition is whiny and their antics tedious. And although McCain can be a loose cannon and has derided any number of press people for questions he didn’t like or a perceived slight, they just can’t get enough of him.  Maybe this campaign is a bit more calculated and contrived than Udall’s, but the appearance of honesty, straight talk and likeability is working.  For how long?  Who knows.  But it might be long enough to get elected.

Speaking of long and elected and despite what you hear, this is not the longest Primary race in history.  It only seems that way because we expected it to be the shortest (and yes, it did start earlier).  Let’s take a quick look at the history of the Primaries.  Actually, in 1968, when Hubert Humphrey became the candidate-it was unclear right up until the convention that he would be the nominee.  1968 was also a year of change in this country, what with the war, women’s rights and civil rights movements heating up.  In fact, that may have been the last time we had an honest public discourse about race.  Subsequently, 1976 was no picnic and although everyone thought Jimmy Carter would be the candidate, and thanks to the press, there was a perceived contest right up until Convention.  In 1984 Gary Hart and Walter Mondale ran neck and neck until the primaries in California and New Jersey in June.  And had Hart not issued those now famous words “I got stuck in NJ’ there is no doubt the contest would have continued with the newly created Super Delegates weighing in.

My point is that while there were a few “whoever had the most money “ early decisions, (Dukakis and Kerry) most of the races did not end in February.  The difference with this race is that Clinton expectations were for an early victory, young people came out in droves to express dissatisfaction with the status quo, and Independents and Democrats decided that hope was not a bad idea, and real change of any kind,  was more important than experience.

The Princess felt it was her turn to rule.  The Prince, being of mixed race and younger, thought there was no such thing as “turn.” And the Big Bad Wolf is satisfying his hunger with a meal of mollified media.  The End?  Not yet.

Bill Richardson is an old pal.  We go back to the Carter days, before he was a Congressman.  Probably before he had either thoughts about being an Ambassador or President of the United States.  It was a time when there were a small group of us, almost all who were political appointees, and we would party on weekends and other extraneous numerous occasions.  We never needed an excuse—just a time and place.

The tone of the times among the people who were involved in politics a few Presidents ago, was much different than it is today.  We were not fearful about the press.  Quite the contrary, they had traveled with us on varying Presidential campaigns and had become our friends. In those more congenial, gentler times, the TV personalities, pencil press,  and photographers, spent the day working, then filed or shipped their stories and immediately proceeded to whatever hotel bar happened to be the closest to the most people.  Here we all proceeded to recount the events of the day and drink ourselves into a stupor—OK maybe not a stupor but enough to make us confess intimacies as well as outimacies (which were sometimes more interesting.)

But what about Richardson and why did he endorse Obama — you probably want to know.  I’ll get there soon.  First let me say, Bill is a terrific guy. He is charming, funny, and has an incredible capacity to remember events and people. Even after I hadn’t seen him in ten years, he was able to vividly recount details about evenings which—even under threat of bodily mutilation – I could absolutely not recall.  He is a person loyal to friends and generous of spirit.  But if you cross him or if you are unkind to anyone he loves, you will assuredly suffer his diplomatic wrath.  He will not forget or forget a slight or perceived slight.

That being said, and painful as it is for me to share, the Clinton campaign is infamous for their lack of grace, their sense of entitlement and their ability to anger even the sweetest of people.  Although contrary to the Hillary I know, and I am not sure the candidate is aware of the way in which her staff operates, but she should be – this is a reality.   So you put these two ‘knowns’ together and what do you get?  A former Clinton Administration Ambassador who, although it was certainly not necessary, decided to endorse a stranger instead of a long time friend. Could it be that the Clintons either dissed or dismissed Governor Richardson in some way?  I’m guessing this is a possibility.

“There is something special about him”.  Richardson said in his speech. “I’m not sure what it is but it is good.”  When I heard that statement I thought, come on Bill spell it out.  But then I thought, the Governor is in the same place as so many people.  I guess what I think is special is that he talks to the general American public like they are grown-ups.  Unlike Mr. Gore, or Senator Clinton, he does not seem to care if he is smarter than we are—he wants us only to be smart enough to understand the some important truths. With regard to the issue of race, the truth is that there are Blacks who feel disenfranchised and discriminated against and  Whites who are angry about the possibility of being or having been  denied their own opportunity at the expense of Blacks and Hispanics.

What was also special about the Speech and the man was that he understood the limits of where he could go.  It was not a speech that addressed economic issues, or welfare mothers, or inequity in the schools.  It was an elegant explanation of why he couldn’t throw Reverend Wright “under the bus” (wherever did we find that colorful metaphor),  how he didn’t agree, denounced, decried, was reviled by and found unconscionable those controversial statements and how he thought it was time to have an honest discussion about racial tensions, misunderstandings, difficulties.  He felt the only way to get beyond them was to have a national conversation about them.  How refreshing.  So this man who wants to lead the country is articulate, honest, a visionary and refreshing. Agree or disagree with the depth and scope of the content, who wouldn’t endorse that?

I hope my speculation about why Governor Richardson did what he did satisfies this readership.  Although it’s just a guess knowing the persons and personalities, my anecdotal surveys support these contentions.   It has been said that politics makes strange bedfellows – clearly this is true when you look at what’s happened to the Governors of New York and New Jersey.  But as a woman, my concerns go way beyond who’s sleeping with whom and how many of them there are.  I want to feel assured that Senator Obama, will eventually give the same kind of speech about gender.  Although I do understand that in the initial stages of the campaign they needed to be focused on early wins, I now want to see him develop the kind of relationships that will help him to understand the importance of giving women a voice in the White House. Bill Clinton did this to some degree and Hillary, although not in involved in the beginning of the Administration, eventually came to support the effort and she is now supported by the women (and organizations) who had a voice.  These are the women that changed the way money was  donated in elections, that fought diligently for Title IX, Family Leave, and Choice.   Is it any wonder that they remain staunch Hillary advocates?  Is it a surprise that they are reluctant to trust any other candidate to support the enormous gains they made.  And is it impossible to understand their fear about losing their powerful place in Democratic or Presidential Politics.  I would think not.

While he has advocated for Choice and women’s economic opportunity, Senator Obama is an unknown in the world of Gender politics in which these important ‘girls’ play.  They look at a fairly inexperienced campaign with young people in senior positions and they say, “ is this new generation going continue to fight,  stay the course or think the work is done.”  What relationships will the Senator develop that will take him to the place they want him to be?  One good sign is Betsy Myers—who headed up the White house Women’s Office in the Clinton Administration.  Another is Karen Mulhauser, the former Executive Director of  NARAL.

Given the reality of the Primaries, it may be time for women of a ‘certain’ age to trust that Senator Obama really does have a special qualities and they are, as the Governor says, ‘good.’  What I know for sure is that the more we talk about these things the healthier a Presidential season we will have.

Not everyone is going to agree about everything.  And that’s OK.  In these United States of America you hope you will find there are people who have varying opinions. Diverse debate is what makes this country great. Or at least it’s one reason, along with the ability to buy bagels almost anywhere and get spring rolls or pho ga in even a small town.

From the time we were kids at Brandeis University, (I didn’t go there but my first husband did so we were part of the community) and we had many Israeli friends, they would always say, “When you have two Israeli’s engaged in conversation you will always have twelve different opinions. This is no different from having two Americans in a room who are of different races, genders, geographic locations, religions, and cultures.  Between these two people you are bound to find a virtual panoply of sentiment about whatever the topic.  So I am not surprised about the range of didactic discussion when we are talking about the Obama speech.

Most of the articles in the NYTimes and Post  reinforced the idea that Obama’s  was a momentous speech which might actually kick start a conversation about race.  They interviewed number of people who agreed that, although they might not have been satisfied with his answers about the Rev. Wright, they were moved by the sentiment and thrilled about the possibilities of race reconciliation sometime down the road.  And you have to say he was successful given the number of conversations it has produced on talk radio and cable TV.

My surveys were much more anecdotal but not to be discounted.  I asked about twenty Floridians (that would be at least 80 opinions) how they felt about the DNC discounting their votes and additionally, how they felt about the Obama speech.  Interesting enough none of them felt disenfranchised. Some said they were not surprised, since they didn’t follow party rules.  And they were angry at the Governor (a republican) who made the decision about when to have the primary.  A few said they hoped Hillary would get their delegates and a few said they wanted some kind of a recount but they didn’t care as long as they got to go to the convention. “So what”, they said “they’re not going to give us chairs?”  Once they had vented their seemingly indifferent feelings (limited frustration)  about the primary , I asked what they thought about the Obama speech.  (These were people from 20-60, predominantly white).  Most felt it was an amazingly candid heartfelt sharing of information and concern.  A few said it didn’t explain why he stayed in the church—but many of those sentiments were a result of a conversation with their rabbi or minister.  My (pick one: rabbi, minister, priest) said, “If I had given a sermon like that my congregation would have left the sanctuary. Why would Obama – this elected official, have stayed for twenty years?”

This is not a question I can answer because I am sure it is so much more complicated than any of us can imagine. The thing that struck me in the Obama speech was when he said that Wright had been a Marine who served in combat. And that in the twenty years of sermons, these few has been plucked and played over and over.  It doesn’t excuse Rev. Wright but I  wonder what kind of rhetoric white ministers used in the south during segregation. I wonder what it must have been like for Black men who served their country and came back to find they still had to drink from a different fountain and their kids were not permitted to go to the “good” schools.  I am saying Reverend Wright had no business saying the things he said, and I am not going to try to figure out what Obama’s thinking was about his commitment and dedication to this church and this man.  I only asking a question in, maybe too circuitous a way, is it possible that what this man, working diligently to be the President of the United States, should not be judged by what one angry and disgruntled character in his life (albeit an important personality) has to say about his own experiences – not those of the candidate?  Regardless of agree or disagree with what he accomplished or what the speech lacked, there is general agreement that he did the right thing and we absolutely do need to have an honest discussion about race.

Hillary said she thought it was an important speech.  Maybe it is one she should have made about gender.  I would have liked —no loved it, if she had addressed the nation (without whining) about why it is important to have a woman as the Commander in Chief or any important elected position.  A woman in that role would have a totally different approach to domestic issues, war and negotiations. We are very different managers – I think much better because we are more likely to build consensus among the people to whom we delegate responsibility. Additionally, we are much more willing to listen to varying opinion. I am not generalizing—it’s just how women operate – when they are not trying to imitate men.  But she didn’t think it was important to address gender issues and he felt he couldn’t survive without a conversation about race.   As my mother would say “go know’ – translated without my mother’s tone it means, who ever could have guessed.

But back to my original thought (yes, I have actually had a few).  There are always going to be people who agree and disagree about whatever the issue.  This is not a surprise since there are still people who deny the Holocaust ever happened, evolution is a myth perpetrated on an unsuspecting ill informed public and any book by William Faulkner is trash.  Not that these are bad things—and I mean that in the nicest possible way, but in my humblest of opinions, they do fall under the “give me a break you idiot” category.

So we need to stop worrying about right wing talk radio show hosts, and we need to look at the reality of this great nation. There is a desperate need for substantive discussion about race, gender, medical research, war, the economy, health care, oil prices, foreclosures, corporate greed, jobs, education, drugs, international relations, care for the elderly and on and on and on. We do need to look at all the candidates and decide who has the vision and courage to be a great (just good doesn’t make it anymore), leader. All the candidates need to get beyond the “he did, she did, and their friends did” and start to have a conversation with the public about what they did—or at least intend to do to make this country the best it can be –whole and strong and competitive in a world where there is both chaos and hope.

Iris

It’s times like these that I wish I were a poet instead of a political pundit.  And after watching all the pundit’s on TV, I say that with no reluctance whatsoever.  Where do they get these people… Never mind it’s not important in the realm of knowledge or truth.
John McCain has visited and been embraced by Bob Jones University.  In this particular seat of advanced education, no interracial dating permitted.  You may say, “It’s 2008. And they are Christians.  Surely that can’t be”.  (You are so smart – but I count on that from this readership.)  In this case, however, you would be wrong to think that this can’t be.  My question is, how do they call themselves an institution of learning?  Or maybe they don’t — except when high level elected officials visit and need votes.  Maybe they are just a religious enclave with too many young people buying their crap.  And I mean no disrespect to the Little Baby Jesus, because you know he’s one of my favorites.

Barack Obama gave a speech today.  I did not listen to any of my colleagues evaluate what he said. There was no need.  I know who liked it and who didn’t. He talked about having an honest discussion about race. And he shared a very private story about his white grandma and how she was afraid of Black men but she loved him more than anything.  And he admitted  that she made racist remarks that made him cringe –because he was a half black kid.  He was well aware of his color, but she clearly didn’t see him as colored – he was her blood and the precious child she was raising.   For those people who doubt this as a possibility, trust me, it is.  How painful and devastating this must have been for a child or a young man.  But I know he is telling the truth because I know it is not only possible,  but likely for a person to be blinded by love.

When my son was a child we lived with my dear friend Bebe.  Her son Alan was Black  She was White.  Seth, my son grew up in a community where there were no Black people – although one of his friends was of Indian heritage.  So when he met Alan he acknowledged  the fact that he was not exactly the same and he was thrilled that his friend looked like chocolate.  It was never a negative.  The color was a celebration and about as important to him as liking a shirt that another friend was wearing.  He loved Alan and was blind to any racial or cultural differences.  In the same way, but not exactly, when my daughter Jordan was growing up she was surrounded by people of all colors and races.  Her school, by accident was about ¼ Black ¼ White, ¼ Hispanic and ¼ Asian.  She, unlike Seth saw no color differences. She loved her friends,  without any judgments other than if they called her pig snot.  I’m sure she must have noticed there was a difference but it was no more important than friends who had straight or blond curly hair.  It wasn’t until she got into high school and her Black friend Reesie decided she wanted to hang out with only Black students, that Jordan discovered there were greater issues than she was prepared to discuss.

This was not how I grew up.  My small town was blue collar white Italian and Polish Catholic.   There were fifty Jewish families and 40 of them were mine. Not much diversity to be sure.  But because there were no people of color with whom to contend, race was not a problem. I do, however remember that the Jewish kids had to stand in the back of the room when everyone else was singing Christmas carols. It was lonely back there because there were only three of us.  One was my cousin Steven, who was happy not to be hung on a hook in the front of the room for his behavior and the other was Andy Hurwitz, now a Supreme Court Justice in Arizona—hopefully someday the job will be federal.  Anyway,   I didn’t like being singled out for something over which I felt I had no control.  The good news is that my parents weren’t racists and I developed a sense of moral outrage about discrimination – color, cultural, gender, age whatever.    The bad news was my introduction to cultural diversity didn’t exist until I got to college.  It was a long time to wait – but at least it came.

Back to the Obama speech, which was critical in order for him to continue with the campaign succeed. I can only judge it for what he said.  Certainly not for what, (as other pundits who need to say something in order to have TV time or get paid),  the implications or the innuendo might have been.  He said he loved this country. There is no reason to doubt this.  If you were to tell him to “put that American flag back on your lapel because then I will feel assured about your patriotism”, I’m sure he would give it consideration. Not because it is politically expedient but because there are some people for whom symbols are more important than words or actions.  He explained, without apologizing, his attraction to the Reverend Wright and further explained  how positive elements in the Reverends character are as much apart of him as his White mother and grandmother.   But here’ the most important thing he said.  We need to have an honest dialogue about race in the US.  And we do,  until it is a conversation we can have without being self conscious about what we say.

This nation can choose to pretend that race is not a social, political or economic issue. And we can continue to allow the people who want to be President of the United States to be embraced by bigots and racists who hide behind the shields of academia.  Or we can see the importance of this election for everyone in particular women and persons of color and say, “yeah let’s talk about it.” And yes the teacher did hang my cousin Steven on a hook in the front of the room