The Battle For America

Will The Democratic Struggle Be Lost Due To A Clash Of Rascist/Gender Ideals?

Punting around American blogs of late, I’ve been dismayed – and not a little alarmed – by the weight of vehemence displayed towards the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Were this antipathy confined to the rantings of red-neck Republican tomes, it would be understandable. Much of the antagonism, however, is vented by Democrats, and a large proportion of them are women.

It’s understandable that those who supported Hillary Clinton as the nominee should feel disappointment. Having a woman finally elevated to the top job in the White House will be an important milestone, when it eventually happens, and Clinton came close to succeeding, at least in achieving the Democratic nomination.

It would appear from the large number of Clinton supporters writing on the internet, that they are resolved not to confine those feelings to mere regret. Many are actively campaigning against Obama, and some are indicating an intention to vote for the Republican nominee, McCain, because they view the act as some form of protest.

What would cause someone to switch sides so blatantly, solely as an expression of selfish retaliation? After all, attending a ball-game to cheer on your favorite quarterback, only to find he’d been replaced at the last minute by a player the coach regarded as superior, might cause a degree of chagrin but would hardly cause you to switch allegiance and cheer on the opposing team, now would it?

Is the backlash to Clinton’s defeat solely a result of the disappointment suffered by millions of American women hoping their champion would assume command, or is there another, perhaps deeper and somewhat more sinister reason behind this apparently illogical antipathy towards the Democratic presidential nominee?

There were two issues unique to this year’s Democratic nomination process. One concerned the subject of race; the other related to gender. Had only one of these factors been in evidence, or had they both been there but separated by party lines, the situation outlined above would not now be in evidence.

If Obama, or Clinton, had been running for nomination on a Republican ticket, gender versus race would have been heavily obscured by party boundaries. As it was, despite the undercurrent of political correctness pervading this nation, and strangling any open debate on crucial race/gender issues, there were two totally separate battles being fought on the playing fields of primaries and caucuses in America between January and June this year.

Concurrent with the standard political skirmishes of Democrat versus Democrat and Republican versus Republican, was another far more acrimonious conflict – that of black man versus white woman.

The struggle for human rights in America has been ongoing for generations. There have been two major forces in play. One, the black population striving for equality with whites; the other, a battle for woman’s rights and equality with men.

In the past, both issues have existed side by side without serious conflict. Black women fought for their right to equality with men alongside white women. It was easy for both issues to become intertwined on the long hard road to social justice.

All this changed in 2008. In a moment, the cosy relationship disintegrated as two mammoth ideals clashed head-to-head, under the political cover of the Democratic nomination. While the white women of America were content to garner the fruits of their unofficial partnership with Black America, so long as it suited, the endemic gene of white supremacy surfaced with a vengeance once both ideals locked horns on the fields of Democratic primary and caucus.

It was unthinkable that a white woman should lose out to a black man. When it happened, the defeated were unable to accept the enormity of the occurrence. Race is still an endemic problem in the United States, even though the carpet under which it is buried is a thick one. Not to put too fine a point on it, it’s okay for African-Americans to fight for equality, but when white Americans have an issue to sort amongst themselves, i.e. a gender battle, the black population should retire and allow white issues to be resolved, before returning to their own struggles. When they refuse to do so, and instead have the temerity to take on white female America head-to-head – and win – the resultant howls of protest, from Maine to Mississippi, are loud indeed.

From now till November the struggle fought in America can only be that of Democrat versus Republican. Those still refusing to accept Barak Obama as the Democratic nominee do no service to themselves, their country, or the world.

The 21st century has brought with it a crossroads that threatens the very existence of our species. For the last eight years, America has dragged itself and the world down into an abyss of self-destruction, powered by greed and a lust for power.

George W Bush has been merely the symbol, but not the cause.

Those who hold the reins of power behind Bush are the true culprits, and the same individuals have now switched their allegiance to another, easily-manipulated individual, John McCain. It is their intent to ensure McCain becomes the symbol, for another eight years.

The time for self-centered retribution is not now. Unless the Democratic party coalesces behind its nominee, Barack Obama, and stands prepared to support him, however contrary to any individual’s views and feelings, it will allow the continuance of neo-conservative policies that have wrecked America and other nations, economically and morally, and brought the world to the very brink of disaster.

Filed under:

Please follow and like us:

9 Replies to “The Battle For America”

  1. Have you been tinkering with your site again?

    Of McCain, Clinton, and Obama, Nader is the best choice.

  2. Me again. Everything looks good in Firefox, but the typeface is not pleasant over at Explorer.

  3. Via Explorer, it’s yuk!! Sorry, R.J.

    On the topic in hand, I’ve fallen out ‘virtually’ with a few ladies, or rather they’ve fallen out with me.

    I’m really glad Condi Rice wasn’t a candidate, otherwise I’d have been accused of both sexism AND racism.

  4. Flimsy – Thanks for the tip-off about IE. It came about due to me missing a ‘>’ off a closing tag in the sub-header while writing that last post. Firefox suffered it in silence, but IE can be relied on to scream in agony anytime there is the slightest code discrepancy. I rarely use IE these days and only occasionally check to ensure Sparrow Chat is still readable with it, so hadn’t noticed.

    In a perfect world, I would agree that Nader’s policies outshine any of the others. Sadly, this world is grotesquely flawed, and his policies are of little use given that he will never be in a position to implement them while America runs under its present (two-party) political system. Until the people decide enough is enough, and force a change, Nader is no more than a purveyor of dreams. Any vote cast for him, that would otherwise go to one of the main parties, is a vote lost to that party. It’s a sad, sad, situation – but unfortunately a true one.

    TOB – again, thanks for the tip-off re Explorer, now hopefully fixed.

    I have two regular commentators I know are devoted to Clinton and unhappy with Obama. I also know their feelings are very genuine and not motivated by any form of political mania, but this election is not really about McCain or Obama. It’s true purpose is to rid the administration of the neo-cons who have dictated policy this last eight years. That won’t happen with another Republican president in office. Hopefully, though there’s no certainty, it will under a Democratic president.

    Incidentally, if Condi Rice were in the running I’d be on the next tramp steamer bound for the Bar lightship.

  5. RJ – well – you know what I’m going to say!

    I understand your point of view and how it’s possible to see things in the way you describe. It’s also possible to see the situation in another way. Many people (myself included) have grave doubts about Obama on several fronts. Hillary Clinton has now’t to do with my opinion, other than that she’d have been a better choice. I wasn’t a fan of hers at the start, I was for Kucinich. I know that some anti-Obama groups are motivated mainly by being pro-Hillary, but not all of them, and not all are women.

    Many of the anti-Obama groups would prefer to see McCain with a strong Democratic Congress to keep him in check than risk giving the reins to Obama – the unknown quantity, with some very dodgy associates, and a racist wife.

    My husband is of similar opinion to your own, except that he doesn’t trust Obama, but will feel obliged to vote for him to keep the Republicans out ( doubtful in our state though!)

    I’m of the opinion that Obama could prove to be worse than a Republican for the USA, at this dangerous point in time. His background hasn’t been properly investigated, his resume isn’t impressive, he’s proving to be anything but progressive in recent votes (FISA for example). I do not trust the guy, sorry!
    And I’m not a racist.

    I don’t know who I’ll vote for – I just don’t know.

  6. Twilight – all the suggestions I’ve seen accusing Michelle Obama of racism, have come from blogs whose owners feast nightly on Fox News. I’ve researched both of the Obama’s fairly thoroughly and have found not one iota of evidence to support such wild accusations. The loonies rant about a 96-page thesis she wrote while at Princeton in 1985, when she was barely twenty years old, (some of which I’ve read and found to be the work of an intelligent, thinking, person prepared to state her views clearly, though without obvious prejudice) or a mythical tape yet to surface in which she is alleged to mention the word, ‘whitey’, though it seems unclear whether it was actually that, or simply that she was asking the question: “Why did he” rather quickly. Either way, there’s no tape to support it, just a load of biased accusation. Oh, and of course, there is the fateful comment about finally being proud of her country, which can hardly be construed as racist, though ‘unpatriotic’ has been bandied about. Personally, I’d have used the term ‘un-nationalistic’, something I consider an asset in any individual.
    If you are in possession of any firm and substantiated evidence of Michelle Obama’s racism, from a reputable source, I’d be pleased to know about it.
    Briefly, on the subject of a Republican president with a strong Democratic congress, all I can say is you have more faith than I, in the Almighty performing miracles. 😉

  7. I don’t have any firm evidence about anything on either Michelle or Barack, RJ – nobody does – that’s the crux of the problem for me. 😉

  8. I would never vote for Clinton. (were i murkin)

    That’s based on the Clinton history, not on her sex.

    But i cannot believe you overlooked the obvious; that when blacks and women were both fighting for equal human rights in the sixties, it was agreed that women would step back to give the black cause precedence. The sources for this are overwhelming and i’m not going to cite them all here. Just a brief glance at feminist history will suffice.

    I believe that the general idea was that after blacks got their rights, they would help women get theirs; a deal that, unfortunately, never materialized. Understandably, many feminist leaders were miffed, to say the least. They could not be expected to be as charitable this time, if the opportunity to ‘power’ presented itself. Perhaps they’re reeling from an ugly ‘deja vue’.

    And i also can’t believe that you used a sports analogy to try and explain the thinking of women. Love tap up the temple, RJ.

    OK, i’m going back to the kitchen now.

Comments are closed.