A Race to Remember

By Margaret Michniewicz

It's been widely commented on in some circles how suddenly, suddenly (!) the issue of race and gender has factored into a presidential election. As though, with 219 years of only white, male chief executives, the issue of race and gender was not an integral factor. Whiteness is very much a racial category, and to be male - though the boys may like to think otherwise - is not necessarily the norm!

In discussions with people over the last month, I've encountered the reaction to Vermont Woman's endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton as "of course" we would endorse her, that we are merely sheep dutifully marching along typical gender lines. I admit I have to laugh when I think, "Yes. Vermont Woman, The New York Times, The Denver Post, Congressman Jack Murtha, Robert Kennedy, Jr., economist Paul Krugman, 30 admirals and generals, Jack Nicholson… yep, all of us voting right down that gender line!" And, I'm sure Major General Martha Rainville would have to question the charge: in 2006 this paper endorsed her male opponent for Congress, Peter Welch. But it comes back to this: if you're white and male, you get to make informed statements, while the choices of women and African-Americans, for example, are scrutinized on every level, and suspect for not being made on a "legitimate," reasoned basis.

To a degree, yes, a given group of people may favor someone with whom they share an identity. And so, this may influence in part why large numbers of (but not all) African-Americans would choose to vote for Senator Barack Obama, and it may influence why large numbers of (but not all) women cast their vote for Clinton. It's similar to this: I recall people who had been ambivalent at best toward Howard Dean when he was our governor. But how so many in the Green Mountain State then rallied for him in his run for president! He was one of us, after all. And this is why pundits point out in presidential races whether or not a candidate carried his home state or not. The nature of the political punditry and pollster beast is that it loves to categorize and break us all down - perhaps in more ways than one.

Clearly, both candidates have more to offer than their gender or a skin tone, and this race is important and historic for the tremendous excitement and political participation it has inspired. Nor is it a bad thing for the Democratic Party that the race is continuing on. Some political analysts have astutely observed that the large numbers of newly registered voters (numbers which continue to increase as the primaries continue) will benefit the party come general election season, in terms of mobilizing support for the presidential nominee, in addition to Democratic candidates for office at the local and state level, as well as Congress.

As it stands now, the interests of the country are not served well with the current furor to End the Race Now! Keep in mind that many past races were not finalized in March - in fact, many have continued well into May and June, and some beyond that. And this year, the race between Clinton and Obama is so close - far closer than virtually any in U.S. history - that it is imperative that the democratic process prevail, which is borne out by public opinion polls: apparently people don't like the pundits pronouncing that it should be done, already. According to current polling of Democrats by the Rasmussen Report, 62 percent want the race to continue; 22 percent want Obama to drop out now, countered by exactly 22 percent others who want Clinton to bow out now.

It's unfortunate that we are at this point in the race and Obama has not been fully vetted. It should have happened far earlier - and this is not to say that what is found would necessarily disqualify him. But for the sake of those who are not keen to have a Republican - at least one who's not quite distinguishing his stands from that of the current president - keep hold of the White House, all the cards need to be on the table, now. Anything the smear machine behind the Republican National Committee can get its hands on will be used to destroy Obama's candidacy. Consider what they did to one of their own with John McCain in the 2000 race, disseminating the innuendo that he was father to an "illegitimate black child." They most certainly have known about Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright for some time - and I'm sure they've been salivating over what they'll do with that. Obama's much-lauded speech on March 18 may have given mainstream white America a primer on race relations in the USA today, but it has not even begun to diffuse the bomb that his general election opponents will most certainly relish detonating.

It's troubling that just two or three days prior to this speech, Obama continued to flat-out lie about the full nature of his relationship to his pastor, and whether or not he had been present during the sermons by Wright that are under most scrutiny at the moment. The eloquent speech was given because his hand was forced.

More food for thought comes from Obama's home turf, in this March 7 editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times:

"Guys, I mean come on. I just answered like eight questions." With those few words, Barack Obama ended a Texas news conference where he had come under tough questioning about influence peddler Tony Rezko from Sun-Times columnists Carol Marin and Lynn Sweet and CBS2 reporter Mike Flannery. In fact, Obama dodged the questions.
Try to imagine President Bush, fleeing questions coming at him fast and furious over a controversy, closing a news conference by saying, "Come on, I just answered like eight questions." Democrats in Congress and liberal interest groups would be shouting coverup. The editorial pages of the national newspapers would be thundering outrage. The late night comedians and left-wing blogs would be heaping ridicule on him…
Obama is lucky the Rezko affair is a Chicago issue with which national reporters are unfamiliar. And, given what's known today, it's hard to see how the Rezko case could wound Obama's political ambitions. But for that reason, it's hard to understand his reluctance to answer questions from the Chicago investigative reporters who know the Rezko issues best.
Maybe that's something Democratic Super Delegates ought to consider as they ponder whether to declare for Obama now or wait to make a decision closer to the Democrats' August convention. They need to know that he will be the strongest candidate for November.

We maintain at Vermont Woman that the stronger candidate is Hillary Clinton. Not only is she the more viable political choice in a general election (if anyone has been vetted by Karl Rove and his ilk, it is Hillary and Bill Clinton) - but most importantly: she is the individual who will be the more effective leader upon taking office.

Margaret Michniewicz is editor of Vermont Woman and can be reached at editor@vermontwoman.com.