Morning After Reflections

 I always knew that Bill Clinton was problematic. With his welfare reform and Three Strikes law, I could hardly say he was the best friend a black girl could have. But I still loved him. In spite of his philandering ways (which I've come to expect of powerful men anyway), I still loved him.  He was an intelligent, down-to-earth Southern man who could play a mean saxophone. He chose to love a woman who was just as intelligent and ambitious as he was.  And he had so much swagger. How could I not love him?

Then in 2008, the Democratic Primary happened, and I fell out of love.  The way they ran Hilary's campaign--with the not-so-veiled racist attacks on Obama's character among other actions--was disappointing and heartbreaking. I know Bill was fighting for that intelligent and ambitious woman he chose, and that fact deserves a measure of respect, but they could've fought differently.  And even after Obama was chosen and won, clearly, there was still bad blood that reared up in Bill's discourse from time to time which reminded me of my initial heartbreak.

But last night at the Democratic National Convention. . . . It was like when you run into an old boyfriend on the street and he's looking really good and he says he's missed you. For the life of you, you can't remember why y'all had to break up in the first place.  So you accept his invitation for drinks and after.  And the next morning, you know you won't get back together, but it was really good to see him again.

Bill's speech was amazing!  It was substantive, it was clear, it was witty, it was forceful where it needed to be.  It laid it out plain for regular folk.  He did the darned thang!

Last night wasn't enough to make me fall back in love, but it sure was good to see him again.

Too annoyed for words

As you might have been able to tell, I am too annoyed for words. So I'm just going to link another blogger's link. Over at Professor Like Substance, there's a succinct post and an awesome link to "The Daily Show" highlighting the ridiculousness of political bull stinky. I wish I could remember which show I was watching--I'm too irritated to go check the DVR--but some ultraconservative, um, person, actually argued that the reason not to fund Planned Parenthood was not because the money went to pay for abortions. No, he argued that when money goes to the non-abortion services, the other money is free to fund abortions. What kind of jacked up ideology is this? "I don't want my money to pay for something I don't believe in AND I want to stop other people's money from paying for it, too." Who is this freaking controlling? Why does that make any sense? We are talking about a legal, medical issue here. That's not even to mention that this link of "thinking" suggests that having women die from cervical cancer from lack of screenings is preferable to having any women access abortions. So, should I be asking how can I prevent other people's money from buying guns? I just--I mean . . . arrrgggghhh!

Keeping It Real

I started this post to briefly comment on the tone of political rhetoric in light of the Arizona shootings, but I was watching The View the other day, and as usual, they were saying things (or omitting things) that got on my nerves, so I'm going to discuss them both.

First, Sherri told Elisabeth that every situation is not all black and white and Whoopi made the joke that it is at their table. Then Barbara said not to her because she doesn't see color; that was the way she was raised. I know she thinks that is good, but to me, it is not. It is, at best, a cop out and at worst, racist. As a cop out, it doesn't require you to make any distinctions among people when people are filled with distinctions and nuance. It's like when schools have zero tolerance policies and they don't have to think through the differences in a student bringing a plastic knife to school and a machete.

It can be racist in that it allows one to assume everyone is like them, that they want to be like them. (Because, if we're honest, we relate to people from our own frame of reference first and foremost.) It denies their culture, their history, and their experience.

I can't speak for every racial and ethnic minority or every black person, for that matter, but I want you to see me as black. I am a black woman and I am proud of it; I love being black. Being a black woman affects the way I experience the world. I don't see anything wrong with it and I don't see anything wrong with people recognizing my race. It becomes problematic when you think (consciously or unconsciously) that being black somehow makes me less than or when you begin to assume certain negative things about me just because of my race (or my gender).

Switching gears:

There's so much discussion now about the tone of political rhetoric and whose to blame for the tragedy in Arizona. It seems the politically correct thing to say is that no one is to blame but the shooter and that there's vitriolic talk on both sides of the political aisle. Maybe, but it seems to me that some people are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. I will use as an example Sarah Palin because the focus has been on her, but she is not the only one who does this. Rappers, actors, etc. do it, too. Whenever something negative happens and fingers are pointed at popular points of influence, everyone is quick to assert their blamelessness. They had no influence over that emotionally or mentally disturbed person. But in times of positivity and financial opportunity, then they are glad to have influence.

Sarah Palin gives speeches, writes books, and garners high ratings on television. She has been called a king maker because of her influence in getting people elected to office. How in the world can she abdicate her influence now? I don't believe she intended for that disturbed man in Arizona to kill people, but she put her words out there and she has to understand that ill people are going to take them how they take them. She cannot claim that her words do not add to the violent tone of political debate now when that's part of how she makes her bread and butter.

Rappers and rockers are similar. They make money influencing people; if their words and music had no power, no one would buy it. So, when that power extends itself in a way that is unfavorable, it is disingenuous for them to say, "I have no power. I have no influence." Because that's not true and they don't really want it to be true or they would be out of business.

Just keep it real, folks.

Arizona, Your Dixie is Showing

Is Arizona losing its mind? I thought Arizona's new law allowing police officers to require papers of people suspected of being illegal immigrants was harsh and wrong and wide open for abuse. I understand that they have a problem with immigration, but I don't think demanding citizens to prove themselves (because let's face it, that's gonna happen), is the way to eradicate the problem. Especially when there are no standard ways to determine who looks illegal, who doesn't belong, except that they look brown and/or poor. But maybe, maybe, I could chalk the law up to what Republicans keep saying is Arizona's desperation surrounding what to do about illegal immigration. Until I read this. So now they can't have ethnic studies classes? Because Chicano students learn that they are oppressed? Forget that there's some truth in it. Now, you're going to oppress them by not allowing them to learn about themselves, but it will be okay because they won't learn that this is a way of oppressing them? Smart. And racist.

My goodness! Every time I talk about racism in my classes here in Biblebelt, my African American students have story after story about their individual experiences with racism (though sadly, none of them recognize the institutional racism that affects them all), but all of their encounters take place in the South which leads them to believe that the South is the hotbed of racist activity and all other areas of the country have evolved. I think Arizona is trying to say, "No, we haven't. Remember we didn't want Dr. King's birthday either. We don't want people of color here."

But Arizona is not alone, as I try to tell my students. Sean Bell's death happened in New York. The Compton Cookout Party happened in California. And now that we have a nation experiencing massive economic hardship and its first Black president, this type of xenophobic, racist vitriol is happening all over the country.

History has shown us that when resources are scarce, the population becomes quite territorial. I think the Holocaust is an extreme example of this fact. The Germans were suffering and they began to believe the Jews were responsible. Enter xenophobia. Here, in America, we have the event of a lack of jobs and lost houses/shelter; combine that with a new face in authority and we have a perfect storm that rallies Tea Partiers to yell "Give us our country back!" And although they like to dress it up and say they are calling for the return of their country from the government, when the government seemed to be in the hands of a White man who said it was okay to spy on their phone conversations, check into their library book selections, hold them for weeks without benefit of counsel and declare war without their permission, they didn't ask for it back. But when a Black man (who, by the way, is half White and was raised by White people) tries to bring about health care for the majority of Americans, then they want it back. I think they are saying we want it back from the minorities. I think Arizona is striking now before the minorities can take over completely.

But the thing is, the minorities aren't taking over. We still have massive oppression to overcome (even though apparently Arizona and others would rather pretend they don't exist). Minorities are still disproportionately incarcerated; percentage-wise, they have the highest infant mortality rate; minorities were the largest percentage of people losing their homes in this housing fiasco; there are only two people of color on the Supreme Court and one is certainly not working for the good of other people of color; and how many minorities are there in the Senate? Plus, I don't know what the fear is (Glenn Beck), but Obama is really not working toward empowering Black people at the expense of Whites or anyone else. Ask, Tavis Smiley. According to him, Obama is pretty much ignoring Black issues.

If America is to live up to its ideals, what's wrong with minorities being on the come-up? Why can't it actually be about the best being the victor, regardless of color or ethnicity? So, there's a job up for grabs. We shouldn't be like, "They are taking our jobs." The jobs shouldn't belong to anyone except the person--male, female, black, white, brown, etc.--who best meets the qualifications. I realize that it becomes complicated because our history has determined that some people will be in a better position to meet the qualifications than others. So, things like Mexican-American studies should be taught because that will help those individuals become better prepared to meet the qualifications. Studies have shown that when students learn about themselves as a people, they do better in school and thus in life. This wouldn't give them a leg up on the competition; it would just help them get on even footing so that the race would be fair.

These are scary times. Yesterday, on one of the Sunday Morning Talk Shows, the host said 70% of the people supported Arizona's new immigration law. (He went on to say that when they polled non-white people, the numbers were turned upside down against the law.) Apparently, we need to be ever vigilante because I don't think Arizona is the exception. If we're not careful, America is going to march itself right back into the Victorian era.

Seen and Not Heard?

Michael Steele needs a spanking. Are you kidding me? I chuckled at his tiff with the apparent leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh. I shook my head just like I do when my children have a huge fight about which sippy cup belongs to whom. But now I'm more disturbed. He apologizes to Limbaugh in such a limp-wristed manner that I wonder where all of his normal intestinal fortitude went. What did he think would have happened if he had said, "No, I meant what I said. " Isn't it true that Limbaugh is an entertainer? Isn't true that he's incendiary? After all, he did say that Michael J. Fox was faking his Parkinson's symptoms. Limbaugh isn't even a politician, so why is anyone obligated to engage in discussion with him? This is what people in the South would call loud-talking: speaking in louder and louder decibels so as to keep an opponent from being heard. Loud-talking doesn't actually demonstrate logical weaknesses in another's argument. It just seeks to stop the argument. That's Limbaugh and conservative talk radio in a nutshell.

I am going to go ahead and say that this demonstrates the real place of minorities in the Republican Party. Does anyone think that he would have ever been elected if Obama hadn't won? They needed an image change and he raised his hand. If I were in a class, I would engage a discussion about silencing and voice. Who came to the defense of Steele? It took about 10 seconds for Steele to realize that he would have to apologize, and he didn't wait another 10 seconds before he commenced to ducking his head. And how many people came to Limbaugh's defense? How many people called for him to apologize for denigrating the leader of his own party? Whatever position Steele has officially won here, he clearly is not valued or respected. I wonder if he's had an epiphany or if he's going to keep towing the party line out on a dingy by himself.

Insulting My Intelligence

I refuse to believe that Americans are as stupid as politicians and the media believe they are. I had my definite opinions about Biden and Palin's performance last night during the VP debate, but I was interested to know what the political pundits had to say. True to form, Democratic sympathizers thought Biden did great and Republican sympathizers thought Palin did a good job. Many (not so many Republicans) admitted that expectations were so low for Palin that, of course, a gaffe-free performance would be like a home run. But really, is that all it takes to be outstanding?

I was insulted that I was supposed to accept Palin's evasive and rehearsed answers and arrogant refusal to respond to the moderator as a stellar performance. Have the standards for American excellence become so low that one does not have to do well, they only have to not mess up, for us to accept it as a win? Do the "people in the know" expect so little of Americans that we are to accept mediocrity as excellence?

These low expectations of Americans are also revealed in the assertions that Biden did not do well because he was too professorial. Like they said of Obama at the Saddleback forum, his answers were too nuanced and therefore would not resonate well with the American public. So, are they saying that Americans are too stupid to understand that life's situations are not always black and white, easily characterized by a catchy slogan? Do they not have enough faith in the American public to believe that they realize that life is complicated?
Maybe they don't think much of America's intellect, but, my goodness, give us a little credit.

Woman Wonders

I've been away far too long. But I have just been speechless at what is going on in America--the Wall Street financial crisis, Obama Waffles, race as a factor in the election, Palin. There is just so much I did not know where to begin. But today, I just got to talk about women stuff.

As a woman, I am excited by the prospect of female achievement. I celebrate Women's History Month in March and make sure that my students are well aware of it. In my writing, I always insert the accomplishments of women alongside the oft touted accomplishments of men. I correct people (when possible) when they in any way ignore the presence and person of women. So, Gov. Sarah Palin's nomination as Vice President should be thrilling to me. But it's not. I believe that while Palin's nomination and even possible victory would be a victory for women on the surface, ultimately, it will not.

It seems that Palin's nomination pretty much amounts to affirmative action. Not affirmative action as it was intended by the Black leaders who fought for it (the opportunity for qualified minorities to be considered regardless of their physical characteristics), but affirmative action as many people think it is today--the selection of a person based on a physical characteristic regardless of qualification. I've heard people say that Palin isn't smart; I don't know her so I can't speak to her intellect. From what I can discern about her qualifications and the baggage that surrounds her, however, it seems clear that she is truly an affirmative action choice. She has a degree in Journalism that she earned after attending several schools; she was the governor of a state that in no way resembles the diversity of the nation; she doesn't seem to be well aware of key political issues like the economy and the war; and her only foreign policy experience is that she can see Russia from her home. Let me stop there for a moment. When Charlie Gibson asked her about her insights into Russian actions, she actually said "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." If anyone expected more of her than to be a token woman, would they have accepted that answer from her? Wouldn't they have demanded more? It appears that she was chosen because she is a woman--not the most qualified woman, but a woman who will get votes because she is a woman. It is not surprising that she is an affirmative action pick because, contrary to popular belief, White women are the greatest recipients of affirmative action hiring.

This is bad. It's bad not only for the country for obvious reasons, but bad for women because she will be representative of all women in power. If she can't do the job, then it will mean that women just aren't ready for this position. It's sort of like what people thought in the early 90s when Shannon Faulkner couldn't hack it at The Citadel. After all that protest and talk about the first woman getting into the all-male military school, when she couldn't meet the standards, she made all women look bad. True, other women have enrolled in the school since, but her failure validated all of the naysayers and sexists. This is the problem with affirmative action picks when they are not made in the spirit of true affirmative action measures.

The Republican handling of Gov. Palin is already giving women a bad name. Although they are alleging sexism in every arena, by not allowing her to take questions and acting as if the hard-hitting questions (which I am really skeptical of her receiving) will be too much for her (a Journalism major who was once a member of the same press), they are saying that this woman can't handle it. Protecting her as women have been protected and pedestaled for generations says that she is helpless and unable to handle herself in the face of tough situations. In what way does this "protection" say that as a woman she is prepared to face anything that men can face?

As a woman I am offended by the way Sarah Palin has been presented to the public. They have made light of the very real issue of sexism, calling actions sexist that clearly aren't. Asking a question she'd rather not answer? Questioning her baby's parentage as a research question that never gets printed as fact? This is not sexism; this is journalism. Calling things sexist that aren't sexism mitigates actual instances of discrimination and oppression. Like the boy who cried wolf, people are less likely to respond when the real thing rears its ugly head. I am offended that as a woman Palin is allowing this to happen. I wonder why she is willing to do so.

Eureka

So hard to love Republicans? It's hard to like them. Because of those "snooty, snotty, snide" tones as well as their hypocrisy and manipulation of people and ideologies, they demonstrate time and time again, as Palin said last night of the media, they don't care about your approval or (this is me) you and yours.

I have a bias; I support Obama and usually, the Democratic candidate. I don't want to do so blindly so I am open to the faults of the Democrats and at times, I am open to supporting other viable candidates for office. This also means that I try to be aware of every side and so I have been trying to watch the RNC this week. It has not been easy. In listening to Giuliani last night, I heard the snideness, as if working with the people to effect change is not only less than noble, but ridiculous. Palin also attacked Obama on his grassroots activity, drawing a sarcastic comparison between being a community organizer and being a mayor of a town of 6000+ and saying that she would tell us what she did as mayor which was to have responsibilities. I was irritated, not only because she discounted working with the people (you know, the everyday Joe's and Jane's with whom her "small town values" insist that she connects), but also because she did not actually say what she did every day as mayor of a town of 6000+. It has been proven time and again during this campaign that Republican ideas of responsibilities and achievement mean different things than the definitions of regular people so actual examples would have been great. (I'm not dismissing the work of mayors of small towns; just wondering if it qualifies you to be almost-president.) But like Giuliani's, Palin's speech was filled with vagueness, sarcasm and snideness.

Part of this attitude of snideness comes from self-righteousness. Republicans demonstrate that they feel they are the sole messengers from God, the sole owners of patriotism and the only ones who cannot be questioned. On anything. From the top down, this comes from having a lot of money. From the bottom up, it comes from dogmatically thinking you have the only right answers about God.

With this attitude, you can easily shape the truth to fit your version of it. They are artists, Steel Magnolia; didn't you know? Honestly, they are incredibly talented and skilled in the art of manipulation and the American people just accept it without question. I mean, really, there are actually pundits out there who are explaining that the McCain campaign is using this "the-media-is-attacking-me" strategy as a campaign tactic to look like the underdog, thus inflaming the base and incurring favor with the undecideds. Although it is revealed as a tactic, people are still buying it. But tell me, how is the media attacking when (1) they don't follow up on any questions and (2) they have only good things to say about the McCains, if anything at all?

I watched Meet the Press on Sunday (I miss Tim Russert) and Tom Brokaw just allowed the McCain surrogate to state his press releases without question. Didn't call him on anything. This morning on The Early Show, they told us 5 things we didn't know about Cindy McCain. A lot of people don't know she had a drug problem (drugs she stole from her non-profit), but I guess it was more important to know that she drives race cars and has three Blackberries. There's no attack from the media on the McCain's, although admittedly, there were a lot of questions about Palin, as it should be since we don't know her and she is trying to be almost-president. How many dern times did we have to see Rev. Jeremiah Wright's clip even after Obama denounced his ideas? The cry about the media is a tactic. We know it. But it will probably work and it's getting the media to back off.

Another tactic they are using is to allege sexism, even when it's not there. Questioning Palin's qualifications is not sexist, but wearing a pin that says "The hottest babe" (as seen at the RNC) seems to smell like it. Because it is such a hot-button issue, the media is tiptoeing around Palin so they won't be accused of being sexist. Where are my JOURNALISTS, those in pursuit of truth whether good or bad? It seems now we only have news reporters. By avoiding any criticisms, members of the media don't actually pursue the truth. They, along with the American public, fall victim to the right's manipulation of the truth.

Which brings us back one mo' time to spin. Here's an interesting link that breaks down the Republican manner of speech; it reveals the artistry of spin.

It still amazes me that Palin gets to use her children for her political advancement--why do I know that Track is going to be deployed on September 11? why can I pick baby Trig out of a line-up although I have never met him in person? why would parents of special needs children know they have a friend in the White House?--but no one can even bring up her pregnant teen-aged daughter when it directly relates to her beliefs and policies. Jon Stewart discussed it well in his interview with Newt Gingrich last night.

The Republican strategy is brilliant because most people fall for it. Like the sheep you talk against your students becoming, people get scared and fall over. There is no fight, no calling them on their mess. Few people seem to want to think through anything; they just want to feel. This is a very frustrating state of affairs.

Spin City

I had decided that I would not comment on Gov. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter because although I have been following the news and blog coverage of it intensely, I wasn't sure I wanted to add to it. But here's the thing: the spin is making me sick. This teenage girl has gotten pregnant outside of marriage and the Republican talking heads are saying that this is a private matter and Palin is demonstrating that she is a strong woman to deal with this. Palin also said in her press release that she is proud of her daughter.

What? Why is it okay for her to use her oldest son's status as a soldier about to go to Iraq and her youngest son's condition as a baby with Down's Syndrome for her political benefit, but it is not okay to discuss her daughter's pregnancy? Especially when she advocates for Abstinence-Only sex education. I think that Palin makes this private, family matter an issue that we can discuss because it speaks to the effectiveness of her choices. We don't know what's going on behind people's closed doors, but we can assume that she taught and advocated abstinence to her children. Now, we see that that message didn't take and that perhaps teaching Abstinence-only is not the best way to prevent our children from unwanted pregnancies and disease.

It would be interesting to see if her attitude about this type of sex education will change. It probably won't, however. (I heard one talking head say that her daughter's pregnancy shores up even more the need for Abstinence-only. What?!?) It is disturbing to me when people are so absolute in their judgments. As if everything is either black or white without any shades of gray. I believe in abstinence. I'm not one of those people who say that young people (or grown people for that matter) can't be abstinent; I've seen a commitment to abstinence work in several people. But I also know that everyone is not going to make that commitment or once made, not going to uphold it. That doesn't make them moral-less heathens worthy of any disease that finds its way into their bodies. Abstinence education should be taught and taught fully, but contraception and reproductive health should also be taught. Social conservatives too often fail to temper their judgment with mercy. Unless it is one of their own.

Which brings me back to spin. When J'la-quesha in Southwest Atlanta gets pregnant at 17, she is demonized, posited as a poor example of judgment and morals, and somehow deserving of the hardships that she will encounter. But here we have Bristol in Anchorage, Alaska, 17, pregnant and her situation is painted as a warm moment--an admittedly difficult situation, but one that the family can find some pride in and that allows the family to demonstrate some strong family values. This application of a double standard is not what Jesus would do.

The spin is enough to land you on your head. And it's not over. You know I am going to be watching The View tomorrow to hear Elisabeth regurgitate what she heard over the weekend. But she won't be the only one and this Babygate won't be the only thing spun. It's just enough to make a body tired.

A Few Reflections on Obama's Acceptance Speech

I have been trying to think of what I can say about Obama's speech. I feel it is only right to speak on his acceptance speech since I've talked about other aspects of the convention. Unfortunately, there is not much to say. It was a good speech and he gave some specifics about what he wants to do in office. He had a moment of comedy--I liked the "Eight is enough" line. I was moved by the discussion of the soldiers not fighting for a red America or a blue America. Some people were bothered by his lack of actually naming Dr. King--DH included--but his allusion to him was enough for me. I was glad that he responded to Republican attacks on his character and told McCain he wasn't going there. This assertive rebuttal is something Democrats have not really been doing in the past few years. I'm not sure what that's about, but Obama seemed to indicate that maybe they have finally realized no fight-back is the possession of losers. And another thing I liked, but I liked it at Saddleback, was his position on abortion. Instead of focusing on choice after the fact, let's work on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. (I'm sure I will come back to this point in a later post.) Basically, I agreed with Obama on several things, but at the heart of it, I agree with his approach to problems. Think them through and look for common ground when there are opposing sides. H e proved in his speech that this is how he thinks when he spoke on immigration, gay marriage, and the Second Amendment.

It was a good speech. I hope that those who hadn't been listening before heard him this time and are now coming around to see that he is the better choice.

Dreams from My Fathers and Mothers

I am so disappointed. I missed Bill Clinton's speech last night and I heard that it was good. I had no doubt that it would be because quite frankly, Bill Clinton is always "pimpin' ain't dead" when he's speechifying. I suppose I will have to avail myself of YouTube.

What I did not miss was the historic moment of the first African American, Barack Obama, being officially nominated for President of the United States by the Democratic party. As CNN panned the crowd after Hillary moved that he be nominated by acclamation, I saw the faces of the people, particularly the Black people, and I felt it. I saw some men about to cry, and I felt it. I thought about what this moment meant, and I felt it. Just think: Black people primarily came here enslaved--shackled, hunted, dehumanized. I am currently reading Song Yet Sung, a novel about an enslaved woman who is running away on the Maryland coast so I am daily being plunged into that world of servitude and violence. Where people have to be duplicitous just to have some sense of sanity. Where people cannot be sure if their children will be with them the next day and they cannot fall in love with anyone for fear that it will cause them to maintain an unbreakable link to slavery. Where people have no choice or control in their own lives. This is a large part of our beginnings in America. And now, now we have a Black man, chosen by people of all races, as a viable candidate for president. Who could have ever imagined that a people who weren't even allowed to read would one day have one of its own chosen to possibly be president?

As I watched the crowd, I thought about Fannie Lou Hamer and Dr. King and all the other people who gave their lives to the struggle for equality. I thought of how proud they would be if they could see us now. Fighters like Richard Wright who talked about being beaten up by White co-workers just because he wanted to learn more about the optical business (something his boss said he wanted him to do). Or fighters like Frederick Douglass who witnessed the daily despair of forced servitude and beatings and who heard the lonely songs of the enslaved. Fighters like Merlie Evers-Williams and Mamie Till who, in addition to waging their own battles for freedom, had to watch their loved ones go down in the fight. They would know that it wasn't all in vain.

I am not going back on what I have said in the past. I don't think that Obama will cure all that ails us. I don't even believe this means now every Black child can realistically dream of being the president. But I'm feeling the import of this moment. And that's enough for me this morning.

She, Too, Sings America

SM, I can't wait until tonight to see what HRC has to say. I know she'll tow the party line and say she supports Obama, but I wonder how she will say it. Will it be enough to convince her supporters to get behind the candidate that already largely represents their views? And, will it be enough to convince people like me that I can respect HRC again and not continue to think of her as the desperate ex-girlfriend who won't let go of the boyfriend who dumped her? I want to respect her. I want to like her again. Just like I want to like the feminists in the movement because I think sisterhood is important. Time and time again, however, they remind me that to them, I am the darker sister and they will hurriedly send me to eat in the kitchen when company comes (to paraphrase Langston Hughes). Last night Michelle Obama showed them that Black women are beautiful and the feminists should be ashamed (still paraphrasing Langston). She presented herself to be a classy, compassionate, and articulate (can I say that?) woman, but she also proved that her family, too, sings America (okay, I'm stopping with the Hughes). She proved that hey, Black people work hard, we love our kids and parents, we suffer non-race related problems like multiple sclerosis, and we can love this country.

I hate that she earlier had to revise/explain her statement about being proud of America for the first time in her adult life because that original claim did reveal the complexities of Black folks' relationships with this country. Cindy McCain's quick rebuttal that she has always been proud of her country just showed how ignorant she can be. Of course, you're proud--your position in society as White and especially rich dictates that America has always been good to you. But Michelle's place as working class and Black reveals that in spite of the fact that America has been harsh (and don't get it twisted--she grew up during the sixties and seventies, harsh times for Black people), she can still find the good in it. Last night's speech showed us that more than find the good, she can love it. I think that is amazing. Rather than try to force Black people (or other people of color) to deny their experience, as Elisabeth Hasselbeck would like to do, I think the fact that they can love the country should be celebrated.

Last night, Michelle's speech made me really consider my relationship with the country. I was inspired when she talked about Barack's thoughts on how too often we accept the world as it is, even when it doesn't coincide with our values. It made me hopeful that we really can strive for the world as it should be.

I was also inspired by the love that she displayed for her husband last night. I know the pundits talk about how she had to humanize him (because I guess he was not human in the first place?), but I thought she really revealed a sense of love between them. It was so beautiful when she talked about how he drove so slowly when he brought her and Malia home from the hospital. And when she spoke of being married to him, loving him for 19 years. . . these things made me a little misty-eyed.

Okay, I also wanted to talk about the crazy suggestion that Black women can't expect White feminists to speak out for Michelle because Black women didn't speak up for HRC when she was under attack, but I just don't have the time or tolerance for nonsense right now. I tend to agree with the comments here, however.

Proving My Point

Rep. Cohen won the primary.

Smells Like Desperation

I was quite excited by the prospect of Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House in 2007. Even as the primary season got under way, I was still excited about Clinton and earnestly trying to decide who I would vote for when Election Day came for Biblebelt. But somewhere along the way I became quite disappointed in Clinton. Perhaps it was when Bill made that statement about South Carolina's election results or maybe it was when Hillary nitpicked about Obama denouncing Farrakhan at one of their 10 million debates. Although I always kept in mind that ultimately, she was still a politician, somewhere along the way, I lost respect for her as a politician and as a woman. It seemed that Clinton felt this was her race, her time and then some young upstart came along and stole her thunder. As such, she became desperate and started doing the most ridiculous things. I picture her as this woman with her arms flailing uncontrollably.

I invoke this memory of Clinton because there is another woman who seems desperate: Nikki Tinker of Memphis, TN. I don't know much about her, but some people aren't crazy about her. I do know that she is running against Steve Cohen, a Jewish man, for the 9th District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. This seat was previously held by Harold Ford, Jr. before he ran for the Senate and prior to that, by his father. Cohen's win in 2006 marked the first time in over 30 years that a White man has represented the predominately-Black district. Tinker lost to Cohen in 2006 and apparently, she doesn't intend to lose again.

She recently released a tv ad in Memphis discussing Cohen's 2005 opposition to renaming Nathan Bedford Forrest Park in the city and having his interred body removed. She had images of Klu Klux Klansmen in the background.

Even if we did not know that Cohen was the one who initiated the recent resolution to apologize for slavery in Congress or that he has a history of civil rights in the city, we can't overlook the fact that he is JEWISH! The Klan doesn't like Jews just like it doesn't like Blacks. Why would she make this kind of insinuation? Why does this association make sense to her?Ridiculous. She's preying on the racial sentiments of the people, hoping that they will not be astute enough to look beyond the emotionalism of her ad to see its flaws. She insults the people with this ad. And she is beginning to smell of desperation.

I don't know whether or not Tinker will make the better representative for Memphis, but I do know that it's true what men tell us all the time: women who seem desperate do not get dates. They are not chosen. As Hillary Clinton sits at home, hoping Obama can pay her bills, bills, bills , she attests to this fact. Tinker would do well not to go down this road again.