Hillary Clinton, Baby Boomer Feminism, and Whistling for Dogs.

When Hillary Clinton entered the race to the White House, she encountered numerous vicious ad feminem misogynist attacks, and she still does. Many have women reacted to the Clinton-bashing by for a new women’s movement, a new fight for full equality. This call to action, however, has generated an unappealing debate between historically oppressed groups that echoes with the 1960's tensions between sex and race.

In a well-considered article, "Race to the Bottom," The Nation's Betsy Reed writes, "feminist sympathy for [Clinton] has begotten an "oppression sweepstakes" in which a number of her prominent supporters, dismayed at her upstaging by Obama, have declared a contest between racial and gender bias and named sexism the greater scourge." Indeed, and it's ugly. Consider Gloria Steinem pointing out in an opinion piece that black men got the vote well before women did.

Although Steinem’s point about males getting to arrive at the party first rings true, there's something ugly about her argument. It implies that "even black men got to vote before we did." Such arguments only remind people of the exclusivity of many liberal movements (and the associated identity politics) that maintain the status quo even as such movements wage war against normative society. Why weren't women of color largely drawn to the second wave of feminism? Because it was a white woman's movement. In an article 2001 article for Monthly Review, Barbara Epstein, an instructor at UCSC, wrote:

Though participants [of second-wave feminism] included women of color and of working class backgrounds, their route into the movement was through the same student and professional circles through which white middle class women found feminism. The presence of women of color and working class women did not mean that feminism was being adopted within these communities. Second wave feminists, especially in the intoxicating early years of the movement, tended to believe that they could speak for all women. Such claims contained a small grain of truth, but ignored the composition of the movement, which was overwhelmingly young, white, college educated, heterosexual, and drawn from the post-Second World War middle class.

The problem is that second-wave feminist arguments rested on assumptions that all women would share the same concerns as those who belonged to the white, straight, middle-class, well educated baby boomer generation. The belief that women, regardless of class or race, shared their concerns about sexual equality seems hubristic—especially as African-Americans and Latinos, among other groups, were still working towards equality. The argument seemed to be that once sexual equality was obtained, all else would fall into place--a little like “trickle down economics.” In other words, sex trumps race—and, apparently, it does for some white women. So much so, that some are bowing the racist “dog whistles” in order to get their gal ahead (see Steinem). As Reed suggests,

what is most troubling--and what has the most serious implications for the feminist movement--is that the Clinton campaign has used her rival's race against him. In the name of demonstrating her superior "electability," she and her surrogates have invoked the racist and sexist playbook of the right--in which swaggering macho cowboys are entrusted to defend the country--seeking to define Obama as too black, too foreign, too different to be President at a moment of high anxiety about national security. This subtly but distinctly racialized political strategy did not create the media feeding frenzy around the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that is now weighing Obama down, but it has positioned Clinton to take advantage of the opportunities the controversy has presented. And the Clinton campaign's use of this strategy has many nonwhite and nonmainstream feminists crying foul.”

Herein we see the second-wave’s notion of equality reasserting itself: there’s a hierarchy of oppression, and (white) women are at the top. In her efforts to shatter the greatest glass ceiling and become the first female president, Clinton must play on old racial tensions as well as pit historically oppressed groups against each other--Latinos and African-Americans, the white working poor against Latinos and African Americans, etc. Sadly, rather than encourage social or economic equality, Clinton's tactics only reinforce the status quo.

You have to feel badly for Clinton, for she must play contradictory roles so often in this race, including the macho, misty-eyed, feminist and the wealthy, urbanite, working class, small town girl. It’s a pity, a shame, that she’s been forced to call out the whistlers to provide the soundtrack for her White House bid.

Note: This post is a rush job and will be edited/revised later.

Bernstein on Hillary Clinton's Ties to Radicalism

Just dropping by to post a link. Carl Bernstein, who has been largely supportive and admiring of Hillary Clinton, published an article, critiquing her ad hominem, "guilt-by-association" tactics of zoning in on Barack Obama's associations with Bill Ayers of 1960s leftist fringe group The Weathermen.

After wondering if her strategy constitutes "21st century McCarthyism" Bernstein notes that, "[w]hatever name it is called, Hillary Clinton, perhaps better than any contemporary political figure of our time, knows the insidious nature of this kind of guilt by association, for she (like Bill Clinton) has been a victim of it herself over a political lifetime." Indeed. Remember all of those suspicions about her affiliations with the Black Panthers and Communists? Let's not forget that, until recently, Clinton prohibited public access to her thesis on radical community-organizer Saul Alinksy (the recent allegations that Michelle Obama's thesis remains under lock and key is unfounded; Princeton released Obama's thesis in February). All of this material made rich fodder for the "VRWC" that targeted Clinton and her husband in the 1990s, and she spoke out vehemently about such tactics then. Pity she's chosen to revisit her experiences with the "guilt by association" smear by applying it to a fellow Democrat.

There's more to be said, but I've other things on my plate right now.

Larry Sinclair's "War": It Ain't Done Yet

The Lawrence W. (Larry) Sinclair debacle continues as he bravely battles against conspiracy, hypocrisy, and, well, bloggers.

Sinclair claims to have been intimate (while high on cocaine) with a presidential candidate. If you're not familiar with his story, which has actually been out there for a while now, just Google his name and plenty of sites will emerge that support Sinclair's claims (despite his lack of evidence).

For the opposition's point of view, visit The Mitch and Nan Show. They're as interested in questioning and disproving Sinclair's allegations as he is bent on destroying said presidential candidate. He's got a gang of supporters, including the notorious white supremacist-affiliated Vanguard News Network (and that is pretty telling), who have been occupying themselves with sending out mass emails to private citizens and to news media. They've also been creating and distributing flyers that repeat the sordid, kind of creepy, claims.

Despite all of the pro-Larry efforts, the Sinclair debunkers--Mitch and Nan et. al. seem to have been more successful at proving their case than Sinclair is at proving his. Rather than present evidence that supports his assertions, Sinclair simply piles accusation onto accusation; when challenged, he accuses people of working for politicians or he threatens lawsuits. Mitch and Nan, on the other hand, have been posting documents that either (further) undermine Sinclair's credibility or provide examples of contradictory statements or outright falsehoods that Sinclair has posted on his, and other, sites.

Unfortunately, some people have gone a little crazy with the Sinclair-directed hostility. Then again, he's given as good as he's got. Without the added excitement of the presidential element, this would be just another online pissing contest / flame war.