Being from the Belt buckle of the 'Rust Belt' I Know most our 'Public Servants' know exactly what we ae experiencing- because theri backroom deals and slight of hands put US here!I've come to realize the 'leading' Democrats in this state are not the solution they have been the problem. That is not to say Republicans are any better. They have All been in the big 3's pocket and rubbing elbows and taking kick backs from Union 'leaders' while the Rank & file are forced to give up more. The 'Group' has intnetionally failed to embrace innovation- why, the old ways have been paying off dividends for decades. Michigan could have been a Leader in the fuel efficiency market- But they refused until the late '80s once it was clear the Japanese were kicking their asses in sales. tehn for a heartbeat they caught up, but only to return to their old ways in the '90's -SUV's.Laughing in the face of not just th econsumers, but the envirnoment and National Security concerns. We ahve known since the '70's reliance on Middle Eastern Oil was going to continue to be a major Security issus. Ye they continued. Now they come- once all our jobs are got, our country has been attacked (again) and we are in th emidst of TWO unwinable Wars with their 'new' innovations. teh Elctric car was developed in the '80s- they hide it! Now they expect US to pat them on the back for being so 'environmentally conscious' and Champions fo rgetting US off Oil.Blood is on the hands of the Oil insudtry , The Big 3 and the politicians and Union leaders who undermined this countries innovative ways since the'80's.My next car will from a country who were always a Step ahead- Saab,Volvo- anything but one of the Big 3- "Buy American" was a slogan they used to milk every last penny out of US- as workers an dconsumers.Criminal Prosecution for Treason, Crimes against Humanity (& environ)and the Resultig War crimes should be levied against all Individuals who have caused this Naitonal Crisis.

Bill,

I am a loyal viewer of the Journal. You are our last line of defense in maintaining the true tradition of American journalism. Where have all of the Bill Moyers gone in the other news venues. Instead we have FOX news, ABC news with Charlie Gibson & George Stepanopolis, Times magazine, and other news papers/broadcasters that no longer publish/broadcast journalism, but rather publish sensationalism in the form of manufactured news.

I am writing to tell you that I am not impressed as much as you obviously are with Kathleen Hall Jamieson. I feel that she is somewhat stuck in the past and how politics use to work. She is not giving us voters enough credit. For example, she is glowing about Hillary Clinton's political strategy of using the gas tax and windfall profit tax as a defining issue. The problem is that many of us that are tired of the old style politics see this for what it is - normal Clintonian pandering for votes. What the Republicans have always said about the Clintons has a lot of truth to it. And, what they say is that the Clinton have no core values. They simply adjust their values based on polls and what they think it will take to win new voters over to them. Why Ms. Hall can not see this is beyond me. I think it may be worth your while to get fresher and younger political commentators that understand this and view the world through different lens.

You made the Statement: "Jon Stewart recently played a tape from the Nixon White House in which Billy Graham talks in the oval office about how he has friends who are Jewish, but he knows in his heart that they are undermining America. This is crazy; this is wrong -- white preachers are given leeway in politics that others aren't."

How can you say "This is crazy; this is wrong" when you do not know the people Billy is talking about.

Are the Neocons representing the best interests of the 100% American Citizens or are they representing the best interests of Israel?

Chris wrote

"It is not a secret that Aids is a lab experiment gone bad, and gets rid of people that are considered of no value by society."

can you cite one reputable scientist that believes this,
one peer-reviewed paper in which the evidence for this is presented? Puh-leaze!

While I fervently hope that McCain is not elected as our next president, I thought KHJ's comments regarding how he was taken out of context re 100 more years in Iraq was a fair one. But in light of the idea that we should continue and expand the garrisoning of the planet, I renew my call for you to invite Chalmers Johnson onto your program to explore the implications of this sort of empire building.

Ms. Jamieson,
Why did you say that McCain's statements on Iraq were taken out of context? Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo debunked this already.

You were essentially saying that McCain wasn't talking about 100 years of bloody conflict, because he promised us it will stop being blood any day now. The segment following your interview reminded us that the government has been telling us for the last 5 years that the hard part is already over or just about to be over. Why shouldn't we suspect that this won't continue for the next 5 years, and the next...? We shouldn't be looking at past wars in Europe and Eastern Asia for an example of the future of Iraq. The history of Iraq and the Middle East teach us that peace won't come easily or quickly.

If we give McCain's comments broader context we include his joking about "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." So not only does he want to stay in Iraq until it gets peaceful (which he promises will happen really soon), but once it does he wants to start a new conflict in Iran.

I think it is important that people have a thick skin and a soft heart.
The world would be a better place if we could discard our excess baggage; live and let live.
Life is tough enough without constant conflict.
The best way to say you care about people is to give them a helping hand instead of a kick in the pants even when they need a kick in the pants. We need to support the needy not the greedy.

Lisa you are stereotyping African Americans,

African Americans do go the college. All immigrants in the U.S. made their contribution to America. The problem is African American contributions are overlooked. So if you think the problems of African American are that they have babies out of wedlock then you are feeding into the same old stereotypes. You and people like you are the ones who stereotyping leads to bigotry. Thanks for being a prime example, bigot.

BJ

Has any one hear ever heard of indentured servants or even know what it means, try googling it. How about the term Wiggers, every hear of that? Irish Catholics built this country doing jobs that were too dangerous for African Americans to do, they were worth something, we were expendable. Yet we made haeadway and moved on. Go to college. Don't have babies out of wedlock. Read "Ethnic America,A History," by Thomas Sowell.

That's not "ruthless and dirty politics". That's just politics. Are you one of those paid to write negative stuff about Obama? At least try a little harder. You must be running out of steam. Especially when it's not working. Senator Alice Palmer picked Obama to be her successor. Then changed her mind. No take backs.:-D
I read that Alice Palmer was campaigning for Billary. Hell has no fury like a woman scorned!
Obama won last night in NC and almost won in Indiana. He's going all the way to the White House!

Obama 08!
BJ

February 24th, 2008 4:03 pm ET
Obama has a history of ruthless and dirtly politics: From a story about how he first gained public office in the Illinois State Senate: (Chicago Tribune April 4, 2007): The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer. A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it. One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?" Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer's elimination marked the first of several fortuitous political moments in Obama's electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed. Hence, his rapid ascent to power…

I am happy to see that Marsha Granville, a woman who posted here, is aware that the presidential election is being tampered with.

Greg Palast, investigative journalist has much to say on this subject.

We need to wake up before it's too late! So much is at stake here America. Let's go around the corporate controlled media and get some real information.

Google Greg Palast.

I heard something yesterday that frightened me. It made me think back to your fine program on Impeaching Bush and how important it was to not let his policies carry on to the next administration.

I would like to know what you think of the following because if it is true, which I think it may well be, we are sunk:

How can McCain be doing so well when Bush has the most unfavorable rating of any President since ratings were made? I have wondered this so often. The reason he is doing so well is that the polling information is fake and the media just blindly accepts the results.

Why fake? Now this is pure Rove: The election is going to be stolen just as 2000 and 2004 were. Electronic voting machines are made in companies owned by Republicans. The machines in key states are preprogramed to give the Republican the win.

We citizens would revolt if we knew how poor McCain's chances to win are, so to make the fixed election work, we show the race as close. This way we will reluctantly accept a Republican win. It is a brilliant scheme, don't you agree?

Well, what if it is alive and well. What can we do?
What can you do? I think the only person who would be believed if this were to be exposed is Al Gore.

If the Democrats had a landslide victory, it would overpower the fix, however, with either a black or a woman as the candidate, a landslide might be unlikely.

Again, what can be done if this is all true?

Bill,
I enjoyed your talk with Kathleen Hall Jamieson. She sees clearly through to the political heart of this campaign, but when she spoke of age versus race versus gender I felt she would do well to beware of the great oversimplifiers. Look closely and you will see that none of these candidates are as old or as black or as feminine as they appear.

Thanks so much, nothing like PBS and Bill Moyers

Keep the great job.

Patricio

I can't believe people never knew black people have their own churches too. Just like every other culture in these United States. When ever Black people have something of their own it is attacked. Why? Black liberation theology is nothing new. Why can't everybody's culture be embraced without trying to make it inferior or deficient to the white church. Every culture has there own way of worshiping God. They should not be judged for it. The reason why race keeps coming up is because the media makes it an issue and in turn the American people follow. Rev Wright has nothing to do with this election. It gave people a reason to be doubtful about Obama. So those who still have some bigotry deep in their hearts can now have a reason, no matter how asinine, not to vote for Obama because of his skin color.
Rev. Wright really made a very good point when he said, "different does not mean deficient". Which is why race keeps coming up in America. When I talk to conservatives they say "we are all Americans" and then say "the problem with Black people is..." Well how can that be? If you really feel that way why refer to a group of people in that manner. Stop lumping black folks together stereotyping them. I don't lump all white folks together because I know this is a country of immigrants. There are poor white people on welfare who don't want to work just like some black people. But we always picture black people. Myself as an African American has "gotten over it" in terms of being successful in my own life but we need to change the way we teach our children because it still teaches African American children inferiority. They give up or drop out of school thinking they can't make it anyway because they are African American. I am speaking from experience not media fed stereotypes or assumptions. Read "The Mis-education of the Negro". Maybe it will become clearer. I think educating America properly will really cause meaningful change not "getting over it". Stop trying to erase to problem and deal with it instead, or it is never going away. We will still be singing the same thing decades from now. Why not deal with the problem instead of sweeping it under the rug?

Sincerely,
BJ s2b MD

This is a response to Veronica who chastises Wright for dividing the world into good and evil.

If it is true that he does that (not unusual for a preacher, but anyone who has read, really read Obama's speech on race could not conclude Obama views the world that way) I say if it is true that you are so averse to this sort of Manichean world view, then what are you going to do? Vote for McCain who is essentially a clone of Bush and shares with him a similarly polarized view of reality.

Really, Veronica, you need to reconsider your view of Obama and quit mapping Wright onto him. The theme of Obama's speech was conciliatory, though candid about past racial abuses, and he is not so stupid as our CURRENT Decider in Chief to claim that our actions are as pure as the driven snow.

Is it possible to get past the prejudice that one's status determines absolutely one's ability to understand or engage with "just folks"? FDR was clearly an aristocrat, as was his wife, and Jane Addams didn't come from poverty. They related to and had sympathy for the distressed. Similarly, are there not cases of people born into the lower or midling classes whose political careers were a bloodletting --- Hitler and Mussolini come to mind.

Is it not a silly pretense to use class origins as necessarily definitive or determinative of one's ability to sense the needs of others less fortunate? When Hillary Clinton accused Obama of elitism, she was relying on people NOT to recall Obama's upbringing, not to recall that after graduating Harvard Law and achieving distinction, he chose to live on the S. Side of Chicago and work for the poor. She was relying on people NOT to know that she came from a fairly upscale suburb of Chicago, Park Ridge, and I doubt she ever spent much time hanging out on Chicago's S. Side.

But the main point is this: we need to pay attention to policy statements and dismiss these phony and silly media pandering efforts by candidates to convince us that, aw shucks, we're just folks. We need to do this despite the success of George Bush who, born into wealth and privilege, has convinced all too many that, evidence to the contrary, he understands the plight of the have lesses more than the have mores who he admitted were really his "folks."

Yahoo shares get beaten down 17% for refusing the Microsoft takeover bid. The market is designed to punish the weak and reward the strong. Ironically our armed forces also appeal to the poor underclass for recruitment as shown by the Army commercial with the farmer father and his son: "My boy is strong, he's army strong." The Chinese also draw most of their army from the agricultural peasant underclass.

Rev Wright's prblems stem from the fact that he pointed out the disparity of a power laden economic/political/social system.

As long as people attempt to isolate ourselves as other than just american's or just religious we will never be united. Every underprivileged group who came ti america either by their own will or in shackles was mis-treated or abused by the capitalist system. It is the nature of the beast. Get Over It. The Native Americans have been mis-treated and abused more than any other group and yet I see no special empathy toward them either. Our next president Barack Obama is living proof of opportunities in this great nation. The time has come for ALL americans to Get Over It already. Poor people of every race and ethnicity have had as much opportunity as anyone if they really desired to better their life. Instead of whining and claiming foul. I myself am the son of a abandoned welfare mother, although I through drive & desire rose through the ranks to executive status and the american dream. Go and make a better life instead of whining about the sins of america. America is the land of opportunity!

Ms. Jamieson's assumption that it's mysteriously difficult to communicate across economic differences is already classist, and her middle-brow circumlocutions are evidence enough that she is probably trying to communicate with another variety of "little people" right here...

That would be us, the lowly commenters who would never think to ask really "deep" questions for ourselves.

I'm sure Ms. Jamieson has so much trouble talking to the poor that it looks like rocket science to her, but we "little people" aren't any more opaque than anyone else, and we would understand plain speech if we ever heard it from "political experts" on TV.

To Ruth Widmer:

The problem is due to slavery the descendants of slaves are still suffering. You could not possibly see the affects because you have blinders on. Racism in the education system is very apparent and in the American people, not just here but worldwide.
As far as slavery being an "acceptable business practice", for anything to be acceptable it has to be acceptable to the people affected by it. So it was NEVER acceptable.
Those people who profited from slavery should be held accountable. Which means if the United States allowed slavery and profited from it, then America should be held accountable. This country was built on the backs of enslaved Africans and the descendants of those are still marginalized. Your "get over it" argument is asinine.

Sincerely,
BJ

Since when has "Black" become a religion? I keep hearing reference to "The Black Church". It is time to refrain from using such devisive terminology. It is up to each individual to make a conscious decision to move into the future without carting the shameful past right along into the future with us. All of the people who owned, lynched, and raped slaves are dead. They can never make it up to this generation of Americans who were never slaves. Slavery was also considered acceptable business practice for the southern cotton industry in those years...similar to how current business owners treat illegal immigrants who work for them today or how the poor Chinese workers are being treated to make products for the greedy US business owners. I am sure 200 years from now Americans will be similarly ashamed of how business was handled in 2008. We are meant to evolve. We can't do that when we cling to the past so much that it hurts (everyone). Next time, please refer to Rev. Wright's church as a Christian church located in Chicago...let go and evolve.
I still love you, Bill Moyers. P.S. Joseph Campbell was amazing. A visionary. He "got" it...supporting the golden thread that ties all religious beliefs to one another rather than focusing on and extracting the differences. An evolved visionary.
With Kind and Tolerant Wishes-
Ruth

I'm certain that when Joni Mitchell wrote/recorded her now infamous, "Both Sides Now" that she did not have politics in mind - at least not these 2008 politics. Thank you Mr. Moyer and Ms. Jamieson for your candid, thoughtful and honest discourse - regarding the Rev. Wright. We have come far as a nation - but have not yet grown into the word - UNITED.

Respectfully,

Fran M.

Thanks Kathleen and Bill; The Rev. Wright controversy looks like Coercive persuasion to me. Tactic #3 non-supporting opinions are prohibited. Could you speak further to this Kathleen.

Thank you Mr. Moyers for further clarification that you my friend are not a non-biased responsible journalist. It now is rather evident that you my friend have out lived your usefulness as a "marginal" commentator, perhaps you could return to the shameless promotion of Joseph Campbell's Myth's & Mysticism (Opiatic religious mumbo jumbo and general brainwashing for the common masses)? You have now officially turned PBS into the FOX network. I can only hope they keep you off of NPR. I have always supported and loved PBS because of the truly non-biased opinions. Due to this love I would not comment on last weeks obvious sympathetic caressing of Rev. Wright. Now however after your nine (9) minute (viewer paid for) uncalled for justification of the Rev Wright interview and subliminal bias toward anyone not supporting Rev. Wright's views I must chime in. I can only hope next week Mr Moyers will spend as much time and effort promoting Sen Clinton's campaign as his obvious desceptive promotion of Sen Obama's campaign this week. Good Night Bill and turn off the lights on your way out.

I have not heard any debate on the accuracy of Rev Wrights comments. It is not a secret that Aids is a lab experiment gone bad, and gets rid of people that are considered of no value by society. When South Africa was clinging to Apartheid , what better way to eradicate its unwanted black population. White America needs to have a conversation with Rev Wright and honestly debate the basis of his comments.

White America never looks at Black Americans as being intelligent or complex. Most of White America thinks justice is for just-us and not for anyone else.

I have never been disappointed in your show before, but your show on Rev. Wright was very painful for me to watch. I felt abandoned by you, Mr. Moyers.

I'm sure sharing the same church as Rev. Wright, it must be hard to maintain objectivity, and if so, then perhaps it would have been wiser to let others who don't share the same church cover the story.

Nevertheless, as a psychologist and university teacher for many years, as well as someone who is regularly interviewed by the media, it seems to me that one needs to convey some standard for behavior. In this post-modernistic world, where everything is permitted, everything is contextual, culture is coming apart. We need limits. We need those limits pointed to and honored.

In my view, American society went over the edge into insanity in the early 80s. Joseph Campbell, My Dinner With Andre, and Network were some of its last gasps. Good Night and Good Luck was a brief reprise.

Rev. Wright must be condemned for his words because they split the world into good and evil, and encourage the splitting of the world in that way.

Such is the reason I will never vote for Obama. He does the same thing, and seems to believe firmly that he is on the side of good, knowing, as he seems to believe, that evil is outside of him. Very Dangerous.

Thank you, Bill Moyers, for your thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate editorial. It's spot on. I don't know why more in the media don't follow your sane principles of thinking rather than demonizing, seeking understanding rather than seeking sensational, knee-jerk tabloidism. I suppose it's a terrible sign for those who rely on those particular media. Many of us go out foraging for insight, and many, many times, I find myself at your doorstep. Thank you for your courage in telling the truth. There is something frightening out there in the analysis of Reverend Wright that shows no room for understanding him as a complex human being, nor how anyone could ever be attracted to him. I am an American. I am a white mother of two. I do not feel threatened by his ideas. I was entertained and engaged by MOST of his ideas, in fact. I suppose that means I can never run for president.

I wish you would...

Thank you Bill. Your opening commentary shows true intelligence, which is using both mind and heart.
So refreshing to listen to reason and rational media instead of the loud confrontational, sensation seeking media that is not interested in anything unbiased. Media that tries to entertain and push the agenda of corporate America instead of reporting the facts. Media that sells war and nationalism like selling soap or beer. I have known for a long time that 'experts' opinions are just opinions and that quoting them creates second-hand citizens who are too lazy to question and inquire for ourselves.

The question is, how do they find a way to understand the circumstances out there? And then how do they address it in a way that makes sense to the people who are actually experiencing those problems?”

Easy. No matter one's level
of income or class status the
easiest way to connect with people who are "actually experiencing those problems" is to approach the problem from a perspective of shared experience. Example - no matter the culture, we ALL smile the same when we're happy, we ALL cry when we're sad. These tendencies transcend class or income level. We ALL care about our children and want the best for them.

Empathy built on shared experiences is the simplest
way to connect. We all at some point in our lives know loss, know grief, know
sadness, know joy. It's our ability to honestly and openly tap into that common experience that I believe allows meaningful connections to be made.

Moyers' comments were disgraceful. Jeremiah Wrong blasts off into la-la land once again with his hate-filled racists rants and his nutburger conspiracy theories, and Moyers excuses it. And let's get this striaght: Comparing this sorry episode to Sen. McCain's stupid decision to accept John Hagee's endorsement isn't even close. Hagee was not McCain's pastor fo 20 years.

"It's all about race..." - Baloney! Well, maybe in Jeremiah Wrong's world, it is all about race. For the rest of us, we're just watching a wingnut immolate himself.

Bill does a great job with his editorial. However, who will redeem all the ridiculous yet damaging accusations made towards the Clintons early on in this campaign, accusations of racism where none existed.

Bill Moyers:

I have searched the internet far and wide this week to find any kind of thoughtful commentary on the Rev Wright story that was a reflection of my own thoughts on the subject.

We are all thankful for the quality of your thoughtfulness and its' contribution to making the public dialog more substantive.
--------
Similar kudos to many others (and especially Mary Carmela of PA) who have expressed their ideas on this blog.
--------
And a formal challenge to Rico, …Aha Moment, suddenly not a pbs fan et al to a public debate…

Hey Sir Vertual:

Africans sold other Africans as prisoners of war not there own ethnic groups. Warring tribes or ethnic groups. And some of the Africans tried to stop this as well as whites. America can't dissolve itself from responsibility just because Africans traded other African prisoners for goods. It was practiced elsewhere as well. The problem is now that we know that part we also know that they were also captured and taken at will and brought to this country. Not only sold by other Africans. Not only that but what happened to African when they got here. Being raped and lynched and treated like an animal was not at the hand of other Africans. Did you forget what happened to them when they got here? You need to read some more. I know my history and I saw the PBS heritage with Henry Gates.
The reason why I say I am African American is because that is how America defines me. And always have defined anyone of color. If color doesn't matter how come when I take a test or fill out a form I am asked my race. Unfortunately, race matters in America. That is not our rule, it is forced upon us.
If the American education system chose not to teach African Americans there history then you should try and make a difference instead of blaming the "victims". And by the way I did not say I was a victim and do not think African Americans are victims.
As a matter of FACT, after everything they have endured I refuse to forget those African Americans who came before me and only call myself an American. I am AFRICAN AMERICAN and will remain so and damn proud of it.

Sincerely,
BJ

After listening to you explain the comments of Rev. Wright I am once again convinced that liberalism is some type of disorder. You are delusional.

Thank you for the words you spoke last night on the Rev. Wright issue. At the end of your program your words about Iran left me with a sense of foreboding. Due to the media we have become so engrossed with this super bowl race to the Whitehouse that we are losing sight of the big picture. While it is certainly heartening to see the American populace getting involved in the democratic process I would hope it is not another distraction from what our government is saying and doing worldwide. The Middle East crisis intensifies with continued Iraqi killings and thousand of refugees. Warships are heading toward Iran, and skirmishes are creating potential for a dangerous military involvement. Military leadership is reshuffled to favor the administration’s policies but the media barely notices. Will they fail us once again?

Meanwhile in the past months we’ve seen scenes where our president is depicted as entertainer, dancing and joking while our congress play the national blues in a low key in background. But I can’t help noticing that little boy look in the face of George W Bush. It’s the cat swallowed the canary look, or wait until you find out what I’m up to now. Any parent or teacher easily recognizes that look. Body language is no less important than words for communicating…actions in fact speak louder than words especially when they are not appropriate and quite contrary to a normal reaction. Bush’s recent behaviors are not typical for a man who is dealing with huge domestic and international problems, facing failure with very low approval ratings. Could it be he is signaling further mischief? Having elected a man stuck in the stages of adolescence the American family and especially the Congress have been reluctant to initiate the warranted tough love of impeachment, hoping that future problems and embarrassments won’t erupt. But personalities like Bush do not learn from their mistakes – instead they find another way to repeat them. Our president a man lacking in judgement and drunk with power is getting ready to leave. Shouldn’t someone take away his keys before he drives us into another terrible head on collision and completely totals this nation?

Regarding the "McCain and 100 years" ad by the DNC, I honestly don't see what is unfair or out of context about it. It contains a clip of a question being asked and McCain's response. It's what he said. The ad doesn't say McCain is suggesting the war continue at its current level of deaths and violence for 100 years, only that he wouldn't care if we were there for that long under some undefined conditions. So why do Democrats have to spend time in their ad trying to explain McCain's position? To me, being in Iraq for 100 years no matter what the conditions might be is just an incredibly stupid idea. But if McCain sees a reason we could be there for 100 years, it's HIS responsibility to explain, and so far he hasn't done that. I don't know of any Democrats saying we could be there that long. This is McCain's baby. I think it's a good ad and a fair ad. This is what McCain said. He needs to defend it.

Mr. Moyers, you are brilliant. Thank you for last night's program; especially your intro reflection on last week's interview with Rev. Wright. I wish your commentary could be viewed on every news broadcast, or printed in America's newspapers and journals. I've learned much over the years watching your broadcast. Please continue your excellent journalism. BRAVO!

Mr. Moyers -

My wife and I enjoy your program. No, we love it. It's intelligent and informative and how refreshing a departure from the crazy media mumbo jumbo. So many channels and so much nonsense. Then there's you. We look forward to tuning in each week. Keep at it

The assumption that "whites" will not vote for Obama owing to his "race" and his twenty-year relationship with Reverend Wright is itself a not-so-subtle form of racism, as is the tendency to lump all whites (or Latinos, or African-Americans, or Asians) together -- a form of analysis usually known as stereotyping.
Wright has been a problem for Obama because of what he said and what Obama did not say regarding what his pastor said and what he said in an effort to rationalize their relationship.
Obama could easily have distanced himself from Wright by specifically rejecting Wright's claim that Obama was a "poor black boy" and Hillary one of the "rich white" people who rule the country (they are both in the very top income category, based on their earnings, and Obama had as elite an education as Clinton), and he could have rejected Wright's call to his congregation to vote for Obama because he was a poor black boy (a form of racial politic). Obama could also have distanced himself from Wright's theology, which holds that Jesus was a poor black man (like Obama?) crucified by rich white people (like Clinton?). But he did not. Instead, he seeks to present himself as the son of a single mother, barely mentioning his grandparents or his stepfather, who actually raised him, and in considerable comfort on the island of Hawaii, not the mean streets of continental America. When he did mention his grandmother (former VP of the Bank of Hawaii), he implied she was a racist and used her to take the heat off Wright. Evidently surprised that anyone would find such a comparison problematic, he explained that he meant to say she was a typical 'white person,' all of whom have an inbred fear of others. His later remarks about bitter, unemployed white folk clinging to their guns and religion and nervously eyeing strangers and free trade deals simply exacerbated his earlier remarks.
So it is not just what Wright has said, it is also what Obama has said and not said. To be “Catholic,” Obama’s own sins of commission and omission explain why many do not trust him.
You do not have to be older or white or less educated or less affluent to find such remarks disturbing -- unless you also believe that "down-scale" white folk are even more of a problem in this country than "rich white" folk.
In reality, the history of racism and discrimination in this country is much more complex than Obama’s self-serving speech suggests; not only have Asians and Latinos experienced it, so have many whites – unless, of course, you believe that the social and economic segmentation of this country occurred “naturally.”
What the media needs to do is to stop pretending there is little difference between the platforms of Clinton and Obama and begin to discuss them seriously. If they did, they would find that there is little in Obama's platform that appeals to those who are not members of officially designated minorities and the more affluent groups in this country, a more rational explanation of the demographics than race. There is no iron-clad protection of Social Security (which is why Obama stumbled in Philly on this question and Clinton did not); there is no universal health care, something those at the lower end of the salary scale desperately need (which is why Obama prefers to launch disingenuous attacks on Clinton’s health plan rather than discuss his own); and there is no viable plan to help poorer kids afford college (tax credits are of little use if you don't have the money up front, and loans leave the less advantaged even more disadvantaged after they get their degrees because they are saddled with debt and cannot use their parents’ networks and elite degrees to coast into comfortable careers). He appears to have no identifiable foreign policy proposals, other than to end the war in Iraq eventually and talk with people Bush thinks are evil.
Rather than race, look to Obama’s platform and his manner and style, all of which reflect his background, which is both elite and black, the first a gift from his white grandparents, the second his own choice. During speeches and debates, he appears to be supercilious – “brushing off” his failure, surreptitiously making a gesture usually associate with college sophomores and high school kids at football games, and continually taking oh-so-clever little digs at his opponent while pretending to disdain such tactics. He also appears to believe that the only reason anyone will not vote for him is because he is black and they refuse to embrace his wondrous message of hope. But that is nonsense -- so much empty rhetoric and meaningless oratory based on flawed assumptions and Obama’s peculiar view of the world, which is increasingly clear and increasingly problematic.

Mr. Moyers:

What can I say? You are the finest, bravest journalist in America today. Thank you, thank you for your brilliant, enlightening presentation.

To Mary Carmela of PA, I agree with you completely. As a 63-year-old professional woman, I have been around the block. I also see clearly how we have a special duty to stand up against racism, and to be supportive of our first Black President. Thank you, Mary Carmela.

Jay Leno quipped, how are they gonna handle the terrorists if they can't even handle Fox News?

Ease Jay, The Fox News staff are all terrorists, so don't have any discourse with them.

This is our national police, let's fallow it. Turn off Fox News, and in doing so, stop terrorists.

Racist America Got Its Needed Symbol
I know that my intial gut reaction to Obama's candidacy was to think there is no way this country would elect him, given how his race is defined; and I feared for his life, given our history. So, the legions of racists among us got their opening with the good Pastor. His outspoken demeanor transposes into wonderful sound bites for consumption by those who were never quite certain that they could keelhaul Obama front & center.
As I watched the various corporate media types dance around his candidacy & campaign, it seemed to me that they were looking for any matter to be exploited in taking Obama down. Pastor Wright has provided what they needed in the form of words taken out of context and fed by the insulated, self-satisified & smug to incurious, indolent & ignorant people whose miserable lives lead them to a ready willingness to anger and hatred.
I think Obama's done, no matter what he says or does. This is confirmed for me by the media's relentless focus on Wright, with not so much as a word about McCain's "spiritual advisors."
So, it looks like it's onward to the other Clinton, whose current pandering ways are so revulsing, and utterly in keeping with the media-driven political process. Now the corporate/ governance claque can look for ways to barely disguise their mysogonistic genetics with yet and still more sound bites and 527 attacks to come.
I noticed that a recent Gallup Poll indicated that a majority of its respondents wanted McCain as president. I was incensed at first reading, but it makes perfect sense on further thought. We apparently only take comfort in a candidate whose policy savvy is laughable, who embodies pandering to an even greater extent than Clinton, just as long as he is a white male.
We can't handle and don't deserve any candidate who suggests business-as-unusual. I fear that Obama is capitulating away from what seemed to be such an approach. Frankly, he would best personify what I took to be his approach if he opted out of this asinine, media-driven slog. Leave it to the panderers. We don't seem to want nor do we appear to deserve anything else.

Mr Moyers, you have been cathartic!
“(...) And that’s why the only way a black guy named Barack Obama who was born in Hawaii, and started his career on the streets of Chicago, can win this race – if you decide that you’ve had enough of the way things are; if you decide that this election is bigger than flag pins and sniper fire and the comments of a former pastor – bigger than the differences between what we look like or where we come from or what party we belong to.

And if you do – if you decide that this moment is about what kind of country we’ll be in the next year and the next century; about how we’ll provide jobs to the jobless and opportunity to those without it; about health care and good schools and a green planet; about giving our children a better world and a brighter future – then I ask you to enlist your neighbors, and knock on doors, and work your heart out from now until Tuesday. In the face of all cynicism, and doubt, and fear, I ask you to remember what makes a nation – and to believe that we can once again make this nation the land of limitless possibility and unyielding hope – the place where you can still make it if you try. Thank you, and may God Bless the United States of America!"

Mr. Moyers wrote a careful, nuanced, and intelligent editorial for the program May 2, 2009.
What I still wonder is why someone as green as Senator Obama trumps seasoned political leaders such as Representative John Lewis of Georgia. How is it that a glib man trumps a tested leader>

RE Jamieson interview and the McCain "100 years in Iraq" ads:

I believe the fact that the ads clearly taking McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comments out of context is actually deliberate, and purely retaliation for the Wright ads the Repubs ran with "God DAMN America" OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

Rather than merely being "unfair", I think the forces behind the anti-McCain ads wanted to deliberately use "punishment by subtraction of context" to illustrate the point that such a campaign (as the Wright sound bite ads) can be waged by either side, and that the result goes nowhere (but in the gutter). I think they wanted to force McCain to go public against not just the Wright ads, but against context-starved sound bites in general.

The "100 years ..." ads started when it was evident that the Repubs were going to stuff ""God DAMN ... " down everyone's throats " ... 'ad' nauseum". I think that is exactly how McCain's camp read the "100 years ... " ads, as a direct "reply" to that tactic, and I think the "100 years ..." ads and the implications of them are what caused McCain to ask that the Wright ads stop running.

A very interesting strategy if that's true, and an interesting development in that the Repubs responsible for the Wright ads refused to stop them at McCains request (thus the "McCain's 'impotent'" charge).

I'd look for the "100 years ... " ads to stop if, and just as soon as, the Wright ads do.

I would like to broaden the discussion to comment on the deliberate increase in racial misunderstanding during this campaign and on women's failure to speak up against it. (Yes, I think women have a special duty here, simply because of our own history and experiences.)

Feminists have put blinders on about Hillary's using race to undermine Obama's support. She, Bill and all too many of her supporters constantly bring up the fact that Obama has black skin, tie him in with Farrakhan, and deliberately forget their understanding of the black church experience and the underlying cry for justice in Rev. Wright's comments. Hillary also had a terrific chance to help us understand each other more by seconding Obama's speech on race, instead of refusing to comment on it, as she did.

Feminists have to ask themselves if getting a woman elected president is worth worsening the fragile state of American racial relations. How can we justify months of encouraging white voters:
to categorize someone who is biracial as being black (remember those miscegenation laws down South we all despised?) (remember too how we never wanted to be judged by our talents and accomplishments, not by our gender?)
to assume that one person with black skin has to answer personally for the statements and beliefs of all other black-skinned persons (how often have we women complained of exactly that being used against us?)
to not encourage the majority to learn more about the everyday lives of Americans of other skin colors (how often have we complained that men have no understanding of women's lives?)
to not encourage Americans to judge candidates for the most important office in the world on their character, their philosophies and their policies (how often have we complained about women candidates being judged on gender misunderstandings?), and most recently,
to further the suspicion that Americans of other skin colors might not be as patriotic as white Americans (this last one is so horrible, I can't even think of anything comparable having been used against women.).

How much more will American voters be this manipulated? How much more will we educate Americans to continue and even deepen their already too well-learned prejudices?

I have been stunned with surprise the past several months by how so many highly educated whites know so very little about the "black" experience in America, and by how quickly they stopped focusing on Obama's own statements and life, and instead judge him by looking at others of his same race (after having first refused to take into account that he has a white mother and was raised by his white family).

How will Hillary and the rest of us ever put the shattered Humpty Dumpty of racial relations back together again after this election campaign is over? It has taken our country 232 years to make the small amount of progress it has in accepting all people as full human beings, no matter what their skin color or gender, and now in 2008 we have deliberately and cynically pushed a lot of that progress away. How long will it take to get back to as far as we were in January, 2008? Another 20 or more years?

We all regret Susan Anthony's and Elizabeth Cady Stanton's opposition in the 1870's to giving the vote to freed male slaves because white women had not yet gotten the vote. Yet today's feminists are doing exactly the same thing, when they complain that a woman is entitled to be president before a man of a different skin color, and when they argue that sexism is more prevalent, hurtful, subtle or tiring than racism. In the early days of modern feminism there were too many accusations that white feminists cared primarily about advancing the issues affecting only educated white women -- those arguments can certainly be made today, and feminists will certainly now have to admit that truth.

Thursday night I walked out of Philadelphia's annual dinner honoring women, not inspired to do more to improve women's lives, but unsettled by realizing the hypocrisy that is now part of feminism. Philadelphia feminists have always worked to be inclusive, in forming our volunteer committees and boards, in choosing our local and national women to publicly honor, and in helping women of all skin colors. Yet all too many Philadelphia feminists are willing to stand by silently while Hillary, Bill, Gloria Steinem, Geraldine Ferraro and many other Hillary supporters actively encourage more racial misunderstanding among Americans, just so Hillary can increase her vote totals.

Why can't we step forward and demand that Hillary and her campaign stick to the important issues of this campaign, and not only stop, but reject and denounce, and apologize for, the race-baiting of the past few months of her campaign. Why can't we ask her to use her national campaign to help further understanding and respect for not just women but also for men, women and children of all skin colors?

Racism and sexism are two sides of the same coin. Whatever promotes racial misunderstanding will also encourage the growth of sexism. In the end, feminists' refusal to stop Hillary's fanning the flames of racial misunderstanding will come back to burn women too. Women will deserve that happening, I am sad to say.

Several months ago, I couldn't decide on my choice among the candidates. Then I decided, for the office to be held by only one person, I had to choose the one person I thought could best lead us out of our horrific problems, Obama; even then I thrilled to Hillary's campaign, as I would so love to see a woman president, and would have been happy to vote for her if Obama lost the nomination. However, as I have watched Hillary play to race, I have concluded that on moral grounds, I could never ever vote for her. The presidency, or any other office for that matter, is too important to entrust to someone so willing to trample our still unattained American ideal that all persons are created equal.

Women know how cruel and unfair sexism is; this is why we women born with white skin have a special duty to stand up against racism too.

The statistics that Ms. Jameson used regarding people seeking information via alternative sources deserves a broadcast all its own, especially given the current threat of internet regulation and your past airings of Big Media issues.

I for one believe the internet is where democracy now resides, as our public airwaves have become the platform for corporate shills masquerading as "reporters".

It will be interesting to see how many news networks will decide to run last night's Bill Moyers Journal comments...

I'd be willing to bet that the only place where Moyers' reflections on Rev. Wright will be reflected upon is right here, on his blog. After all, Moyers' insightful comments wouldn't play well on cable news...it would cause the average American to have to think -- just imagine what chaos might ensue from that prospect!

With regard to your opening reflection on last night's Journal, I simply wish to state how refreshing it was to hear a voice of reason with regard to the nauseating coverage of Jeremiah Wright that has plagued the cable networks for weeks now. So often these days, there is intense negative reaction to what someone says without any effort to understand the underlying reasons behind the statements being made. It is reassuring to hear a genuine attempt to understand the "why" of what Wright has been expressing (whether or not one agrees with him).

We, as a nation, have increasingly developed the unfortunate tendency to close our minds to the honest views of others if they do not reflect our own. In a nation where freedom of speech reigns (or should), it is disconcerting to realize that whenever one openly speaks one's mind, one gets bashed and belittled for it. The sound bite culture in which we live needs to give way to a more intelligent approach to the much-needed honest conversation to which Moyers refers. Yes, we should indeed "hang our heads in shame for letting it come to this in America...," but, as Moyers aptly notes, it is in fact the price we pay for the "terrible simplifiers" that we have allowed our incessant sound bite culture to create.

I will be recommending this program to anyone and everyone. Again, Bill Moyers illuminates our reality with his intelligence and integrity. Bill, thank you so much for your courage and dedication.

If the blinders of:
Obama, no matter what,
are removed, and you note that for 20 yrs. Obama misjudged someone so completely (to paraphrase him)then shouldn't Obama's judgement abilities be reviewed before casting your vote? He may be the smartest Harvard had, but that is not a good reason to expect him to have the judgement necessary to deal with terrorist, North Korea, or Iran.

Go to the national conventionS & select the best qualified candidates to put before the American voter, (maybe none of the top 3.)
Respectfully,
Billy Bob, Florida,

PS. Why should one State have the right to vote before another? Oh! Yeh! the DNP made a rule!

Thank you Mr. Moyers for further documentation that you my friend are not a non biased responsible journalist. You my friend have out lived your usefulness as a marginal commentator, perhaps you could return to promoting Joseph Campbell's Myth's & Mysticsm (Religious opiatic mumbo jumbo and general brainwashing for the common man)? You have officially turned PBS into the FOX network. I can only hope they keep you off of NPR. I have always supported and loved PBS because of the truly non-biased opinions. Due to this love I would not comment on last weeks obvious sympathetic caressing of Rev. Wright. Now however after Mr. Moyers nine (9) minute (viewer paid for) uncalled for justification of the Rev Wright interview and subliminal bias toward anyone not supporting Rev. Wright's views I must chime in. I can only hope next week Mr Moyers will spend as much time and effort promoting Sen Clinton's campaign as his obvious desceptive promotion of Sen Obama's campaign this week. Good Night Bill and turn off the lights on your way out.

The Wright controversy has cast some confusing shadows over Obama's campaign, but, for me, not on Obama the man...right now I'm reading both Dreams From My Father and Audacity of Hope, switching back and forth between them...

My thinking is that you have to understand a very longterm and complex relationship with real son/father psychological dynamics woven in to understand how Barack has "seen" Jeremiah Wright. Wright was not only his mentor, pastor, (father surrogate?), but also central to Barack's organizing in Chicago, and arguably the major male figure in his life at that time, his 20's.

If you grew up with a father, you might not understand what it means to grow up without one, or even worse, one that has visited you only once. Oh, so painful. Barack alludes to the pain, doesn't portray himself as a waif, or wounded, but does make it clear that he was hungry for a father while at the same time not wanting anyone to step into the place he held for his real father.

What I read from this is that Barack held open, and waiting, a very alive place in his emotional structure for his father to come back into, and fill up, and catch him up on what he suspected he was missing...but sometimes you don't know what you're missing...

And then, at a critical juncture in his life, he meets Jeremiah Wright, a powerful man who answers so many of Barack's needs.

I have a very personal understanding of early loss of a parent and how children deal with these losses, and these issues can't be understood in the simplistic terms that campaign politics demand of people.

What would Barack say about my interpretation? Would he feel "seen" by me? Or would he scoff, knowing that his psyche is not the book and the book is not his psyche. Ok. I would agree. But, in the meantime, I hope that voters and especially the media will understand that this relationship can't be reduced to broad brush judgments. As a member of Jews for Obama recently reminded me, we do not hold the sons accountable for the sins of the fathers...

To credit buffoons such as Bill O'Reilly as a tough interviewer is a dangerously inaccurate public assessment. Yes, he is noteworthy, but his popularity is due to his inane ability to exude an obnoxious blather while covering his ears to all response. Yhis is now quite prevelant with the escalated influx of histrionic madmen and mad women broadcasting liberal hatred across conglomerate radio and TV stations.
You could present another entire show on the completele removal of ethics in journalism and how this once intergral part of American culture has been dragged down to the low brow circus it now embodies.
Yet, while there has historically always been a covert revolving door between editors, and journalists coming from U.S. propaganda developers at Intelligence agencies, it has now reached a new street fighting level of blatant ignorance.
This onging mass media pollution of ninds towards a sick doctrine of intolerance for our world's possible co-existence rivals Global Warming as humanity's most dire and immediate threat.

BJ...the "I'm black and therefore a victim" is an old hat...Get a new one...Do a little research...Waaay back in the slave trading days, it was BLACKS who were selling Blacks into slavery for their own greedy profit...and many, many lacks were 'owned' by other blacks and Native 'Indian' Americans...As I write this, I can't help but see Don Cheadle's chin drop to the floor when he was informed his ancestors had been owned exclusively by Native Americans...Think of it, all that waisted animosity toward all the greedy, rich white people instantly dispelled..by 'the truth'...Sign me: a poor 'American' who doesn't judge anyone by their skin color, only their integrity.

Just try for a moment how much stronger our country would be if everyone would put 'American' ahead of 'African-American, or Muslim-American...or as I recall, one of the early republican drop-outs who put his mormon affiliation ahead of 'American'..It's waaay past time to put your skin color ahead of the pride in being American, first and foremost...Add compassion and you're on your way to being a credit to 'the Human Race'....

I have always supported and loved PBS because of the truly non-biased opinions. Due to this love I would not comment on last weeks obvious sympathetic caressing of Rev. Wright. Now however after Mr. Moyers nine (9) minute (viewer paid for) uncalled for justification of the Rev Wright interview and subliminal bias toward anyone not supporting Rev. Wright's views I must chime in. I can only hope next week Mr Moyers will spend as much time and effort promoting Sen Clinton's campaign as his desceptive promotion of Sen Obama's campaign this week.

Thank you
James Jones
Senior Manager, Customer Service Programs

Why can't Kathleen Hall Jamieson run for president?...She undoubtedly has the 'common sense' that seems so lacking in everyone that's come to the plate...Regardless, I'm glad to hear her comments concerning this matter, as well as any other...What a level-headed, cut-thru-the-crap persona...She's got my vote.

As far as Barack goes...he's shown (more than anything else), that he's another wealthy politician that will say what 'his team' feels necessary to get your vote...The reverend wright mess (as an example) Barack makes the comment that 'it happened to him'...This isn't anything that 'happened to him' at all, but a part of the truth as to 'who' he is and good or bad, it's just that: part of the truth. Instead, he takes the 'victim mentality' way out and in my mind it reinforces what I had suspected about his tactics...He'll say what he needs to, what 'the team' thinks the voters want to hear...One week, reverend wright has the same importance as the grandmother who raised him and the next week he's dupped barack for over 20 years...So which is it?...Who's confused?...Him?...I know I am. I also think 'the job' is too big for him. The Washington machine will continue as business as usual and Barack DOES NOT have (the necessary) experience...
On the other hand we have Hillary...she's been put through the ringer and come out basically 'unscathed', proof that she's tough-enough (and then some) for 'the machine'...At no other time in history (aside from WW2) has the US needed tried and true experience...When President Clinton took office, he inherited the screwey bush politics and our highest deficit ever (at the time) and he turned it around...America was doing quite well...Even the 'forgotten middle-class and our poor' had a voice...The alternative (McCain is an insane idea)...Any other choice, other than the Clintons, is too great a chance at this critical time in history...We NEED the experience or I'm afraid we're all headed to hell in a lead-painted, chinese-made plastic handbasket...I hope America is smart enough to put Hillary in office and lets get this country back on the track to recovery after the worst leadership (or lack of) ever...

Clinton linked to Rev.Wright's appearance on NPC ? -
By ZP Heller, Brave New Films
Posted on May 1, 2008, Printed on May 2, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://bravenewfilms.org/84137/
Hillary Clinton appeared on the O'Reilly Factor last night and will again tonight. FOX has already begun releasing highlights like this one, in which Clinton criticizes Jeremiah Wright and his speech at the National Press Club on Monday. And while we'll have ample time to dissect Clinton's appearance and why on earth she agreed to go on O'Reilly in the first place, what needs to be addressed now is the possibility that an ardent Clinton supporter arranged Rev. Wright's press club speech.
According to the NY Daily News and the LA Times blog Top of the Ticket, Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds organized the press club event. Reynolds has praised Clinton in the past, writing on her own blog: "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you." She has also been unduly critical of Obama: "It is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray, [Obama] is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement."
So to recap, a Clinton supporter arranges to give Wright a national spotlight to make incendiary remarks, forcing Obama to once again denounce his former pastor. Then, Clinton goes on FOX News to criticize Wright (and by extension, Obama) and the controversy that one of her supporters helped create. O'Reilly and his FOX pals, in turn, will use this as an excuse to rehash a stale news story that Obama has already distanced himself from. And then, to top it all off, the rest of the mainstream press will continue to play excerpts from this interview for days on end. When will this faux news cycle end?
ZP Heller is the editorial director of Brave New Films. He has written for The American Prospect, AlterNet, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Huffington Post, covering everything from politics to pop culture.

© 2008 Brave New Films All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://bravenewfilms.org/84137/

Race to the Bottom
by Betsy Reed

In the course of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the White House--in which she became the first woman ever to prevail in a state-level presidential primary contest--she has been likened to Lorena Bobbitt (by Tucker Carlson); a "hellish housewife" (Leon Wieseltier); and described as "witchy," a "she-devil," "anti-male" and "a stripteaser" (Chris Matthews). Her loud and hearty laugh has been labeled "the cackle," her voice compared to "fingernails on a blackboard" and her posture said to look "like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court." As one Fox News commentator put it, "When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, Take out the garbage." Rush Limbaugh, who has no qualms about subjecting audiences to the spectacle of his own bloated physique, asked his listeners, "Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" Perhaps most damaging of all to her electoral prospects, very early on Clinton was deemed "unlikable." Although other factors also account for that dislike, much of the venom she elicits ("Iron my shirt," "How do we beat the bitch?") is clearly gender-specific.
Watching the brass ring of the presidency slip out of Clinton's grasp as she is buffeted by this torrent of misogyny, women--white women, that is, and mainstream feminists especially--have rallied to her defense. On January 8, after Barack Obama beat Clinton in the Iowa caucuses, Gloria Steinem published a New York Times op-ed titled "Women Are Never Front-Runners." "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House," Steinem wrote. Next came Clinton's famous "misting-over moment" in New Hampshire in response to a question from a woman about the stress of modern campaigning. For that display of emotion, Clinton was derided, on the one hand, as calculating and chameleonlike--"It could be that big girls don't cry...but it could be that if they do they win," said Chris Matthews--and, on the other, as lacking "strength and resolve," as her Democratic rival John Edwards put it, in a jab at the perennial Achilles' heel of women candidates. Riding a wave of female sympathy, Clinton won New Hampshire in what was dubbed an "anti-Chris Matthews vote."
Thus, feminist opposition to the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton has morphed into support for the candidate herself. In February Robin Morgan published a reprise of her famous 1970 essay "Goodbye to All That," exhorting women to embrace Clinton as a protest against "sociopathic woman-hating." In the Los Angeles Times, Leslie Bennetts, author of The Feminine Mistake, wrote of older female voters fed up with the media's dismissive treatment of Clinton: "There are signs the slumbering beast may be waking up--and she's not in a happy mood." A recent New York magazine article titled "The Feminist Reawakening: Hillary Clinton and the Fourth Wave" described how "it isn't just the 'hot flash cohort'...that broke for Clinton. Women in their thirties and forties--at once discomfited and galvanized by the sexist tenor of the media coverage, by the nastiness of the watercooler talk in the office, by the realization that the once-foregone conclusion of Clinton-as-president might never come to be--did too."
The sexist attacks on Clinton are outrageous and deplorable, but there's reason to be concerned about her becoming the vehicle for a feminist reawakening. For one thing, feminist sympathy for her has begotten an "oppression sweepstakes" in which a number of her prominent supporters, dismayed at her upstaging by Obama, have declared a contest between racial and gender bias and named sexism the greater scourge. This maneuver is not only unhelpful for coalition-building but obstructs understanding of how sexism and racism have played out in this election in different (and interrelated) ways.
Yet what is most troubling--and what has the most serious implications for the feminist movement--is that the Clinton campaign has used her rival's race against him. In the name of demonstrating her superior "electability," she and her surrogates have invoked the racist and sexist playbook of the right--in which swaggering macho cowboys are entrusted to defend the country--seeking to define Obama as too black, too foreign, too different to be President at a moment of high anxiety about national security. This subtly but distinctly racialized political strategy did not create the media feeding frenzy around the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that is now weighing Obama down, but it has positioned Clinton to take advantage of the opportunities the controversy has presented. And the Clinton campaign's use of this strategy has many nonwhite and nonmainstream feminists crying foul. While 2008 was never going to be a "postracial" campaign, the early racially tinged skirmishes between the Clinton and Obama camps seemed containable. There were references by Clinton campaign officials to Obama's admission of past drug use; the tit-for-tat over Clinton's tone-deaf but historically accurate statement that Martin Luther King needed Lyndon Johnson for his civil rights dreams to be realized; and insinuations that Obama is a token, unqualified, overreaching--that he's all pretty words, "fairy tales" and no action.
From the point of view of Obama's supporters, the edge was taken off some of these conflicts by the mere fact of his stunning electoral success, built as it was on significant white support. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton and an Obama volunteer, recalls that for black Americans "Iowa was an astonishing moment--watching Barack win the caucus felt like Reconstruction. There was something powerful about feeling as though you were a full citizen." In democracy, Harris-Lacewell explains, "the ruled and rulers are supposed to be the same people. The idea that black folks could be engaged in the process of being rulers over not just black folks but over the nation as a whole struck me as very powerful."
Soon enough, however, that powerful idea came under attack.
"More than any single thing, that moment with Bill Clinton in South Carolina represents the rupture that was coming," says Harris-Lacewell. The moment occurred in late January, when the former President compared Obama's landslide win, in which he received a major boost from African-American voters, to Jesse Jackson's victories there in 1984 and 1988. Because the former President offered the comparison unprompted, in response to a question that had nothing to do with Jackson or race, the statement was widely read as chalking up Obama's win to his blackness alone and thus attempting to marginalize him as a doomed minority candidate with limited appeal. Obama was now "the black candidate," in the words of one Clinton strategist quoted by the AP.
By March, multiple videos of Wright, Obama's former pastor, had popped up on YouTube and had begun to play on an endless loop in the right-wing media. "God damn America for treating your citizens as less than human," Wright inveighed, reciting a litany of racial complaints. And he said in his sermon immediately following 9/11, "America's chickens are coming home to roost."
According to Smith College professor Paula Giddings, author of a new biography of Ida B. Wells, Ida: A Sword Among Lions and the Campaign Against Lynching, Wright's angry invocation of race and nation tapped into a reservoir of doubt about the very Americanness of African-Americans. "American citizenship has always been racialized as white. Who is a true American? Are African-Americans true Americans? That has been the question," she says.
In Obama's case--given his mixed-race lineage, his Kenyan father, his experiences growing up in Indonesia, his middle name (Hussein)--questions about his devotion to America carry a special potency, as xenophobia mingles with racism to create a poisonous brew. The toxicity is further heightened in this post-9/11 atmosphere, in which an image of Obama in Somali dress is understood as a slur and e-mails claiming that he is a "secret Muslim" schooled in a madrassa spread virally, along with rumors that he took the oath of office on a Koran. The madrassa and Koran canards have been thoroughly debunked, but still they persist--and few have been willing to stand up and say, So what if he was a Muslim? For her part, Clinton, asked on 60 Minutes whether Obama was a Muslim, said, "There is nothing to base that on, as far as I know."
Giddings calls the Wright association a "litmus test" that Obama must pass, saying, "It will be interesting to see if a man of color, a man who's cosmopolitan, can be the quintessential symbol of America" as its President.
Obama initially responded to that challenge with his speech in Philadelphia on March 18. While condemning Wright's words, he placed them in a historical context of racial oppression and said, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community." (More recently, of course, Obama did renounce him.) But in the Philadelphia speech, called "A More Perfect Union," Obama also outlined a racially universal definition of American citizenship and affirmed his commitment to represent all Americans as President. "I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together--unless we perfect our union by understanding that we have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction."
A mere three days after Obama spoke those words, Bill Clinton made this statement in North Carolina about a potential Clinton-McCain general election matchup: "I think it'd be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." Whether or not this statement constituted McCarthyism, as one Obama surrogate alleged and as Clinton supporters vigorously denied, the timing of the remark made its meaning quite clear: controversies relating to Obama's race render him less fit than either Hillary or McCain to run for president as a patriotic American. A couple of weeks later, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen went so far as to call on Obama to make another speech, modeled after John F. Kennedy's declaration in 1960 that, despite his Catholicism, he would respect the separation of church and state as President--as though Obama's blackness were a sign of allegiance to some entity, like the Vatican, other than the United States of America.
In the Democratic debates, enabled by the moderators, Hillary Clinton has increasingly deployed issues of race and patriotism as a wedge strategy against her opponent. First, in the debate in Cleveland on February 26, she pressed Obama not only to denounce but to reject Louis Farrakhan--to whom he was spuriously linked through Reverend Wright, who had taken a trip with the black nationalist leader in the 1980s. In style as well as content, that attack was a harbinger of things to come. In the most recent debate, ABC's George Stephanopolous and Charles Gibson peppered Obama with questions such as, "Do you believe [Wright] is as patriotic as you are?" and, regarding former Weatherman Bill Ayers, a Chicago neighbor and Obama supporter, "Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?" Time after time, Clinton picked up the line and ran with it. "You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people's minds. And so this is a legitimate area...for people to be exploring and trying to find answers," she said, seeming to abandon her argument that these issues are fair game now only because they will be raised by Republicans later and thus are relevant to an evaluation of Obama's electability.
The Wright, Farrakhan and Ayers controversies have been fueled by a craven media, and ABC's performance in the debate has rightly been condemned. But given that Clinton is the one who is running for President and who purports to represent liberal ideals, her complicity in such attempts to establish guilt by association is far more troubling. While she has dealt gingerly with the matter of Wright in the wake of his recent appearance at the National Press Club--accusing Republicans of politicizing the issue--she also took pains to remind reporters that she "would not have stayed in that church under those circumstances."
It's disappointing, to say the least, to see the first viable female contender for the presidency participate in attacks on her black opponent's patriotism, which exploit an anxious climate around national security that gives white men an edge both over women and people of color--who tend to be viewed, respectively, as weak and potentially traitorous. Says Paula Giddings, "This idea of nationalism and patriotism pulling at everyone has demanded hypermasculine men, more like McCain than the feline Obama, and demanded women whose role is to be maternal more than anything else."
For Hillary Clinton, the gendered terrain of post-9/11 national security politics has been treacherous indeed. As Eli