Log in

No account? Create an account
Democrats Must Move Past Anger 
8th-Jun-2008 12:57 pm
Democrats Must Move Past Anger

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted June 4, 2008.

The fight for the nomination has fueled a combustible anger among Democrats. Let's hope the American people don't get burned.
In politics, as in so many other aspects of life, anger is a combustible fuel. Affirmed and titrated, it helps us move forward. Suppressed or self-indulged, it’s likely to blow up in our faces.

With the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination coming to a close, there’s plenty of anger in the air. And the elements are distinctly flammable. As Bob Herbert just wrote in the New York Times, "the Clinton and Obama partisans spent months fighting bitterly on the toxic terrain of misogyny, racism and religion."

Herbert doesn’t spread the blame evenly. And, as an elected Obama delegate to the national convention, I don’t either. But at this stage in the nomination process, the returns of blame aren’t merely diminishing -- they’re about to go over a cliff.

The anger that’s churning among many Hillary Clinton supporters is deserving of respect. For a long time, she’s been hit by an inexhaustible arsenal of virulent sexism, whether from Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews.

If Barack Obama were facing defeat now, his supporters might be more inclined to dwell on the thinly veiled, and sometimes unveiled, racial bigotry that caused some Americans to tell reporters that they could never vote for a black man for president.

There’s no lack of injustices, defamations and outright outrages to cite. They’re important to remember, assess, denounce. And: Now what?

In times of emergency, people have been known to put aside differences, at least for a while. Sometimes, feuding neighbors unravel hoses and pass buckets so the entire block doesn’t go up in flames. Or alienated relatives take care of a fading loved one. People who fear strangers learn to trust in a shared humanity.

The Bill of Rights is burning. Children are dying in Baghdad and Chicago and Los Angeles and countless other cities and towns because of Republican "leadership." Negative trends of governance are scorching a social contract that had been slowly weaving the threads of human decency.

This year offers an electoral opportunity to get out the fire hoses and douse the pyromaniacs of the GOP. But the long Obama-Clinton battle has depleted precious time with little good to show for it.

A lot of negativity has aired, and some of it has combusted. Despite the real progress of the past several decades, remaining prejudices and injustices of gender and race -- and, though less talked about in news media, of sexual orientation and economic class -- are still haunting us and shadowing the future.

Furious supporters of Hillary Clinton are now talking about Michigan and Florida. Understandably, they’re apt to see recent developments in the context of despicable male chauvinism and unfair caricatures in the press.

There’s more than enough anger to burn.

And John McCain is eager to benefit from every bit of such anger, the more displaced the better. Right-wing corporatists quietly cheer his calls to give them even more extreme tax cuts. Outright militarists are hoping for four more years, and the odds seem to be shifting in their favor. Men on the Supreme Court named Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are waiting to welcome kindred spirits in black robes.

Unfortunately, the angry often end up burning themselves.

Norman Solomon's latest book Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State (PoliPointPress) is available now. For more information go to http://www.madelovegotwar.com.
8th-Jun-2008 06:38 pm (UTC)
Hmm. I get what youre trying to say here, but to me it feels like the usual type of article that republican operatives eventually point to in order to validate the "omg why are liberals so ANGRY!?!? *panic!*" tropes they always trot out whenever the democratic party starts to show any kind of fire.

Lets face it, the "democrats are tearing themselves apart from the inside out" line is old meme - and not a particularly valid one. I fully expect to see a followup article questioning the ongoing viability of a party made up of so many different groups, as thats usually how this narrative goes.

lol @ the rickrolling, btw. ;)
8th-Jun-2008 06:59 pm (UTC)
Fox News and similar "news" outlets didn't shout down Hillary because she's female - if her name had been Elizabeth Dole or her surname Bush, she would've been lauded with open arms. They shouted her down with degradation of the female (and Obama with degradation of his name and the Muslim faith - i.e., the idea that ANY association with Islam, real or imagined, means "terrorism," which is erroneous on two different levels) the very same way they shouted down Kerry four years ago with degradation of military service, because all three are against what these "reporters" currently stand for and behind: An old white male idiot who was too scared to go to Vietnam and too stupid to get himself through school, and instead of *admitting* it, got Daddy to enroll him in a program that made it *look* like he was doing military service (and, I'm *certain*, hired someone to do Georgie's work for him in school) ... while he was actually off playing frat boy cheerleader. Which is what he still is.
8th-Jun-2008 07:03 pm (UTC)
"The anger that’s churning among many Hillary Clinton supporters is deserving of respect. For a long time, she’s been hit by an inexhaustible arsenal of virulent sexism, whether from Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews."

Uh, wtf democrats or liberals listen to THEM? None.

I hate to break it to the Hillary supporters but just because someone RUNS doesn't mean they will WIN. Her campaign was not as good as Obama's. That's it.

Having a vagina does not mystically entitle someone to office.
8th-Jun-2008 07:33 pm (UTC)
1. What's really grating on my nerves is the fuckin' stupid claims from Clinton supporters that anyone who failed to vote for her is obviously guilty of sexism, all while Bill and some of their higher-profile supporters (such as Geraldine Ferraro) not only played the race card, they performed an entire fucking symphony with the race card.

The Democratic nomination was Hillary's to lose, she proceeded to do precisely that.

2. It was wonderful getting to meet you yesterday. ;-}}}}
(Deleted comment)
8th-Jun-2008 09:43 pm (UTC)
George, we're not against each other. We're on the same team, regardless of how we got where we are. Please let this be the last time you take it upon yourself to be so presumptuous as to tell me what to think, how to feel, what to say, or how to be in my own journal. I'm not angry or upset with you for offering your thoughts and opinions, but I'm asking you to take a different approach with me than this one in the future. Anything less will be considered intentionally disrespectful, and I'll have none of that.

I ask that you never again suggest to me that I "check myself", or anything similar to that sort of condescension. In my journal and your own in recent days you've taken little jabs at me personally here and there, and I've not responded about it because I've tried to understand where you're coming from and looked beyond it - but enough is enough. I like you very much, but I am not the forgiving type once certain lines are crossed. I'm also very unkind at that point, and I would rather not be as I am trying to maintain my respect for you and our internet friendship.

Edited at 2008-06-08 09:44 pm (UTC)
(Deleted comment)
9th-Jun-2008 02:47 am (UTC) - Re: Apparently there's 4300 character limit...
I think the Hillbots have a little sand in their vaginas.
9th-Jun-2008 02:49 am (UTC) - Re: Apparently there's 4300 character limit...
He took me off his friends list - it's a moot point now.
9th-Jun-2008 05:45 am (UTC) - Re: Apparently there's 4300 character limit...
I hope this shows up . . .

Damn, it didn't. I'm going to try again:

Pearl Necklace

Edited at 2008-06-09 05:46 am (UTC)
9th-Jun-2008 12:11 pm (UTC) - Re: Apparently there's 4300 character limit...
*files to memory bank of zingers*
9th-Jun-2008 05:00 am (UTC) - Re: Apparently there's 4300 character limit...
If 90% of his content is objectionable to you, then I'm wondering why it took you so long to take him off your Friend's list?

You have no idea what kind of ACTIONS this man takes to promote his idea of what is good and just in this world. Seems that you, too, might need to take stock of your own words, remembering that YOU are talking to a REAL person here, too. A real person you clearly do not know jack-shit about.
9th-Jun-2008 04:57 am (UTC)

Seriously YOURs is the most offensive blog on Livejournal?

Some people need to get a life.

No, really.
9th-Jun-2008 12:10 pm (UTC)
Yeah, but you're my sister - you're supposed to say that.

This page was loaded Dec 10th 2018, 6:08 pm GMT.