Ginger56’s Weblog

Bill Richardson bowed out, today. I got an email thanking his supporters. It made me feel guilty because though he interested me I never sent any money. But I hadn’t decided. Still haven’t. Now, another choice has been eliminated before I have the chance.

The email was so gracious about the rest of the field. Someone–either Richardson or some campaign writer–worked hard to express something positive about each of the other candidates and their contribution to the overall effort to define the issues, select a nominee and elect, we hope and pray, a good person to lead our country for the next 4 or 8 years.  Altogether the descriptions formed a pretty good list of the supposed principles, values and priorities of the Democratic party: passion, intelligence, speaking for the downtrodden, equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity, education for al . . .

In the world of polls and campaign funding, of mass media dominance we don’t have time to think much about values and positions. In facct, following the media’s lead, we spend most of our time considering candidates like horses: which one is most likely to go the distance and win the race. We don’t feel safe voting on principles or issues. If we do that, we might lose. (As I type I realize how often this complaint has been repeated. But I can’t stop myself and I don’t know what to do except keep saying it). It’s this maelstrom, whirlwind, the fast-lane on a short track that leads to decision-making based on a single teary-eyed moment or a single speech that gives us goose-pimples. It’s the cardboard cut-out images–flat screen and flat page, paper dolls–that can be changed by a quick symbol. I’ve read cynical interpretations of Hillary’s choke-up as staged. It doesn’t matter. The fact that staged or unstaged it may have determined the outcome of a presidential election shows that whatever image we had of Hillary was incomplete. It shows that support for Barack Obama was of the same paper thin sort, easily shifter. It shows that 2 primaries–or 1 primary and 1 set of caucuses–should not determine the nominee for either party.

I note the NYT agrees. In an editorial today it says it’s good both parties’ nominations remain open. And I guess that is good news. Too bad the candidates are dropping themselves because there isn’t enough money.

When I told my husband I’d decided that far too much emphasis has been placed on New Hampshire and Iowa, he burst out laughing. What’s so funny? I asked. Well, he said, I just can’t believe it took you so long to notice. I always wondered why those 2 little states got so much attention.

Who knows why it took so long, but suddenly I’m thinking that 2 states with a total number of electoral votes about 1/4 of our own state, Florida, have led to the elimination of 2 Democratic candidates. It makes me sad. Both Biden and Richardson have a great deal to offer this country. And, no doubt, being smart and determined they’ll offer something yet. Meanwhile, however, two men with foreign policy expertise, years of valuable experience and considerable grace under pressure are no longer available for us to choose.

As we prepare to celebrate Barack Obama’s victory in New Hampshire, many commentators note that he is the first African-American to pursue a successful, mainstream campaign for president. That’s true. As is poor Joe Biden’s hapless observation that Obama is the first to have a demeanor acceptable to our majority white communities. (That’s not how Biden put it but that, in a nutshell is what he meant). Obama lacks the distinctive cultural flavor we white people associate with African-Americans.

This is a triumph. It is proof that white people can rise above skin color and hair type. If the person of color behaves in accordance with white cultural values, we can ignore–even forget– his so-called race. That’s a step in the right direction. It is important. It is historic. It is cause to rejoice. We might hope that eventually other kinds of personas, maybe even some with a little hint of  jazz and gospel will also pass that particular muster, but this man’s success–his proving that blackness has more than one flavor–moves us forward.

Another candidate in this race has so successfully transcended her position in a historically oppressed class of humans that we seem to have all but forgotten she is a woman. Hillary Clinton, like Obama, is the first of her “kind” to mount a credible, conceivably successful campaign for president. Geraldine Ferraro’s vice-presidential aspirations were thrilling but she was minimally impressive as a potential chief executive. Shirley Chisholm, both female and black, was spunky, clever and absolutely NOT going to win the office. I’m trying to think of others, but I can’t. Like Mr. Obama, Ms. Clinton owes her success in part to her ability not to seem very much of her category. She’s frequently accused of not being “soft” or “warm” enough, not, that is, feminine enough. We can imagine her commanding the military, and she herself repudiated (to her eternal shame) cookie baking. Unlike Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Clinton seems, often, contrary to type. And that is a large part of her success.

HIllary Clinton is strong, bright, knowledgeable, hard-working, a lawyer, a mother, a senator . . . but most of what we say about her concerns her husband’s coat tails, the failure of her message, etc. etc. None of that is wrong, perhaps, but this afternoon, reading an account of a gathering for her in Iowa, I realized: she is a woman and she could be president and that is huge. That is historic. That is, at the very least, pausing to notice and celebrate.

Here’s to you, Hillary. Thank you for advancing the cause of women’s equality. Thank you for combining compassion and strength. Thank you for taking the chance and going for it.

Whatever happens after New Hampshire, you have made history–just as whatever happens Barack Obama has made history. Whatever happens future African-American candidates, future female candidates, future African-American female candidates will seem even less exotic, less surprising. And more possible. Both these extraordinary people move us beyond simplistic binaries and invite us to a future where we really judge by the content of people’s characters–assuming, of course, that in that future the system of money-grubbing, jockeying for power among special interests, media executives and others can be brought into the service of the people’s need–and right–to the facts and a chance to evaluate them.

But that’s a subject for another post.