Pam's House Blend - Michelle Obama

390 Years Minus 100 Days, Pt. 2

TerranceDC — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:39:08 GMT

National Urban League head Mark Morial recently described the state of black America today as "the best of times and the worst of times." He's right. The inauguration of the first African-American president was a moment worth celebrating as an undeniable achievement of the progress we've made regarding race. Many African-Americans from communities across the county traveled to D.C. to witness the moment. Even more of us gathered around radios, television screens and computer monitors.

National Urban League head Mark Morial recently described the state of black America today as "the best of times and the worst of times." He's right.

The inauguration of the first African-American president was a moment worth celebrating as an undeniable example of the progress we've made regarding race. Many African-Americans from communities across the county traveled to D.C. to witness the moment. Even more of us gathered around radios, television screens and computer monitors.

It was a brief respite, savored for as long as the day lasted, and then we all returned home, or turned off the television and returned to reality. For reality the day before and the day after was, and remains, an indicator of how far we are from "the Dream" so often referenced on that day. For just as much as "everything changed" for African Americans on that day, at the same time nothing changed, as one article noted days before Obama's inauguration.

Nothing will change for black Americans on Tuesday, when the first black president takes office. They will wake up in the same homes, go to work at the same jobs, face the same obstacles.

Just a month after Barack Obama's inauguration, the State of the Dream 2009 report revealed that Black Americans are, in this economy, experiencing a "Silent Depression," based on the following findings:

Almost 12% of Blacks are unemployed; this is expected to increase to nearly 20% by 2010. Among young Black males aged 16-19, the unemployment rate is 32.8%, while their white counterparts are at 18.3%.
Overall, 24% of Blacks and 21% of Latinos are in poverty, versus 8% of whites.
The median household incomes of Blacks and Latinos are $38,269 and $40,000, respectively, while the median household income of whites is $61,280.
Nearly 30% of Blacks have zero or negative worth, versus 15% of whites.
On the median, for every dollar of white wealth, people of color have 15 cents. On average, people of color have 8 cents for every dollar of white wealth.

As the Obama administration neared its 100-day mark, the National Urban League published its State of Black America report, examining black progress in education, home ownership, entrepreneurship, health, other areas, and including a message to the president. The report features an Equality Index, a statistical measurement of the status of blacks compared with whites, and while the change in the index - from71.5% in 2008 to 71.1% in 2009 - reflects a continuation of the status quo, it is a status quo defined by disparity, as Morial mentioned in his remarks on the report.

Obama's historic election is a "story of accomplishment, prosperity and increased political power," Morial writes in the forward to the annual study. Yet the "other story is very different," and statistics bear that out.

Morial said the state of black America "is the best of times and the worst of times."

Fewer than 50 percent of African-Americans graduate from high school, prisons are disproportionately populated by black men and there are wide educational achievement gaps along racial lines.

"Taken together, these facts underscore the reality that the election of the first black president does not mean we can now all close up shop and go home," Morial writes.

The report also points that, ironically, that even as an African-American holds the highest office in the country, African-Americans are twice as likely as whites to be unemployed, and three times more likely to live in poverty.

There are other disparities and signs that, as far as we've come, we've a ways yet to go, such as:

heavier jobs loses for black men, and employment rate has dropped 7.8% since November 2007;
the rise in school segregation, as black and Hispanic students are more separate from white students than at any point since the civil rights moment;
tougher economic times for black colleges , where many students require some form of financial aid continue their education, and
health issues such as racial disparities in cancer treatment, and higher rate of heart disease in young African-African Americans, both related in part to a lack of health insurance, less access to quality health care, and socioeconomic factors.

It's long been said that when the U.S. economy catches a cold, Black America gets pneumonia, and in the current economic downturn the diagnosis is more severe than the common cold, and the symptoms are hitting African Americans just a bit harder. Job loss is taking a greater toll among African Americans, causing many to lose ground only recently gained.

Nationally, the picture for blacks is even worse. The overall unemployment rate for blacks in February climbed to 13.4%, while the rate for black men reached 16.3%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Last hired, first fired" is an old adage in the African American community. Factory hands and the unskilled have long been whipsawed by the economy's downturns. Now layoffs are beginning to reach a once fast-growing cohort of black professionals, managers and government workers, including many who overcame discrimination and limited economic and educational opportunities to win quality jobs.

While the recession has touched virtually every industry, it has battered traditional strongholds of black employment and is threatening such secure bastions as public education and government services.

Nationally, the troubled auto industry, which has been particularly welcoming to African Americans, has slashed tens of thousands of high-paying, unionized positions. Retail, services and manufacturing, which disproportionately hire blacks, have slumped.

The growing layoffs among higher-paid African Americans and steep foreclosure rates in their neighborhoods are dealing a crippling blow to the nation's black middle class, community leaders say.

And this is in an economy where the first generation to achieve middle class status is having trouble passing the benefits on to their children.

Nearly half of African Americans born to middle-income parents in the late 1960s plunged into poverty or near-poverty as adults, according to a new study - a perplexing finding that analysts say highlights the fragile nature of middle-class life for many African Americans.

Overall, family incomes have risen for both blacks and whites over the past three decades. But in a society where the privileges of class and income most often perpetuate themselves from generation to generation, black Americans have had more difficulty than whites in transmitting those benefits to their children.

This troubling picture of black economic evolution is contained in a package of three reports being released today by the Pew Charitable Trusts that test the vitality of the American dream. Using a nationally representative data source that for nearly four decades has tracked people who were children in 1968, researchers attempted to answer two questions: Do Americans generally advance beyond their parents in terms of income? How much is that affected by race and gender?

The crisis in the auto industry, and the plight of African American dealers in particular illustrates the circumstances many African Americans are facing in this economy, as their first foothold in the American Middle class crumbles away.

Since the 1970s, General Motors has led the way in providing opportunities for minorities to own car dealerships. The automaker pioneered special training programs and put money behind candidates for new dealerships.

Now, after almost four decades of slow but steady progress, minority dealers are increasingly worried that the latest wave of GM cuts could erode any gains. As part of its latest restructuring, GM yesterday said it planned to slash about 2,600, or 40 percent, of its 6,200 dealerships. GM currently has about 240 minority dealers.

...Even during good times, minority dealers struggled. Their problems have centered around insufficient capital and being placed in poor locations by the companies. The recession has brought on plummeting sales and tight credit markets, exacerbating the dealers' troubles.

Peggy Cockerham, the African American owner of Franklin Pontiac-Buick-GMC outside Nashville, said minorities are having increasing difficulty finding capital to keep their businesses afloat through rocky economic periods.

"Minority dealers don't have the second-generation and third-generation dollars they can pull from," Cockerham said. "After all this is done, the opportunities will remain with the same group of old-line wealthy dealers. Unless we are very careful - unless we get manufacture support - we will eliminate our minority dealers."

So, what's to be done? How much can be done? How much should be done? And by whom? How these questions are answered depends upon everything from political philosophy to historical perspective, both of which collide at the present point, where the gains made by African-Americans since landing on this continent just shy of 400 years ago - from "boy" to Mr. President, from "girl" to "First Lady," and from owned assets to finally owning assets - are at once reflected in White House, and being reversed in African-American homes, neighborhoods and communities.

It's at that collision of politics, history and present reality that we'll have to answer these questions and create solutions to all of the above (and more), if we are to make it the rest of the way to the America that many have believed and many of us still do believe can be.

But first, we have to have a more honest discussion about race in America. And, if we are only part of the way towards being the kind of country that Martin Luther King and so many others dreamed of - believed in with an intensity that propelled towards being the kind of country that would elect a Barack Obama to the presidency - we are still clearly only part of the way towards having that most necessary discussion.

We're are further along than we were, but we haven't yet gone far enough. The question is: Why?

390 Years Minus 100 Days, Pt. 1

TerranceDC — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:37:20 GMT

Many people - including the president himself - have mentioned the absurdity of judging Obama's success at cleaning up messes that were decades in the making, based on his first 100 days in office. It's equally absurd to expect the first 100 days in the administration of our first African American president to change 390 years of racial history in this country. But it's at least an opportunity to assess where we really are, where we're headed, and how far we've yet to go.

Racism and the social construct of race itself are much older than the United States, with deep roots European colonialism. But its beginnings in this continent can be traced back to August of 1619, when the first Africans in America - 20 or so, stolen from a Spanish ship - were traded for food by a ship's captain, upon arrival at the Jamestown colony, in Virginia. Categorized as "indentured servants," but without vital dates indicating the end of their bondage, some were almost certainly slaves. By 1640, as least one African was listed as a slave, and slavery was underway.

The space between here and there is covered by enough history books to fill entire libraries. Suffice it to say that the election of a person such as Barack Obama reflects much that has changed for the better since then. The spectacle of our first African-American president, though not a descendant of slaves himself, being sworn in on the Lincoln bible - held by his wife, who is a descendant of slaves - was a "pinch me" moment for many of us. Reality, on that day, took on a dreamlike quality.

As I watched the inauguration from home, sitting on the carpet in our family room with our two sons - both African-American - I looked up at my bookshelf. There, pictures of my father and grandfather seemed be to looking down at the scene. I sensed a division in time was born at that moment. On one side was the America they'd known all their lives. On the other, my family and I - along with the everyone else - were carried along by history into an America forever changed by what was unfolding before our eyes.

The past 100 days in this new America revealed how much has changed. There have been a surprising number of moments, days, and even weeks - many of them consecutive - during which Obama was not "the black president" but just the president, whose policies don't necessarily satisfy everyone, and irritate some, but whose missteps or debatable decisions are not attributed to on his race.

Not even three months have passed since President Obama's historic inauguration, and already it tends to slip the nation's collective mind that the first black president of the United States is, in fact, black. There may be hope for us after all.

In the cacophonous commentary about the president - he's a breath of fresh air, he's too liberal, he's too moderate, he's being far too generous to the banks, he's some kind of closet socialist, he's restoring the nation to greatness, he's leading us to perdition - it's striking how seldom race is mentioned as an issue or even an attribute. That's only natural, since race could hardly be more irrelevant to the multitude of urgent problems Obama wrestles with every day. Watching him in action, as he shoves out the chief executive of General Motors or exchanges small talk with Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace, we witness a daily demonstration of the irrelevance of race. And that, potentially, is nothing short of transformative.

There's evidence that the transformation continues. Despite criticism that he hasn't engaged enough in or attempted to lead the "national discussion on race," Barack Obama has altered the course of that discussion, and altering the public perception of race relations - with nearly two thirds of Americans, and twice as many blacks saying race relations are good, according to a recent poll - simply by being the president. First Lady Michelle Obama has made an impression as well. Pegged as a potential "loose cannon," race-baited, and stereotyped as an "angry black woman" during the campaign, Michelle Obama proved one of the campaign's best assets and most popular surrogates. She now enjoys a higher approval rating (79%) than her husband (65%).

I get the sense that the Obamas know more will be conveyed by the way in which they carry out their new roles, than any amount of discussion. As Obama's campaign could not be about race neither can his presidency. At some point, he decided he was running to be president, not "the black president." What's most significant is that, finally, a candidate such as Obama could run for president, and not just to be "the black president."

Obama's candidacy and electoral victory both raised the bar for African Americans, and placed it within reach. My six-year-old son was excited about Obama's campaign from the moment I told him what it would mean if Obama won. The best I could do was to say that it would be the first time "someone who looks like you or like Daddy"" would be president. Fortunately, he didn't ask why it would be first time or what took so long, sparing me the task of having to explain racism to my child. For now. But Obama has changed that conversation already, because I can say to my son "You could be the president, if you want be," and point to Obama as an example.

For the record, Parker has no plans on a political career right now. He doesn't like being in the spotlight and having all eyes on him. He says he doesn't want to be president, because "the president has to give too many speeches in front of people." But then he considers his 15-month-old little brother and says "Dylan could be the president!" And maybe he could, now. The ceiling on my sons' aspirations was raised on January 20th, as it was for many African-Americans.

Nothing will change for black Americans on Tuesday, when the first black president takes office. They will wake up in the same homes, go to work at the same jobs, face the same obstacles.

And yet, some Triangle residents say, everything will be different. Many say that Obama's success has prompted them to re-examine what is possible in their own lives, or given them a nudge to pursue ambitious goals.

Many also say they have hopes that their children and grandchildren - whose history books will forever be changed - will see their horizons differently. They will never look at a black candidate for president and think that the color of his skin will assure loss.

Much changed for the better on day one of Obama's "first 100 days" as president. It was a brief respite. For reality the day before and the day after was, and remains, an indicator of how far we are from "The Dream" so often referenced on that day.

In the journey from the America that was to the America that will be, 390 years minus 100 days, is a good start. But only just a start.

On the air: discussing Prop 8...and our new First Lady's posterior

Pam Spaulding — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:30:00 GMT

At 10:15 PM ET, I'll be on The Kevin Ross Show to discuss Prop 8 (including the latest news about the CA Supreme Court review of the proposition's constitutionality). Click the icon to listen online or call in at (347) 945-5939. There's also a live chat there if you want to participate that way.

However, the main topic on the show (it begins at 10PM ET) tonight is Michelle Obama. Or, rather, Michelle Obama's posterior. Take a look at Erin Aubry Kaplan's post at 3 Brothers and A Sister. She has set off a firestorm of commentary in the black blogosphere with Finally, A First Lady That Looks Like Me!. A snippet is below the fold.
Erin Aubry Kaplan:

Barack's better half not only has stature but is statuesque. She has coruscating intelligence, beauty, style and -- drumroll, please -- a butt. (Yes, you read that right: I'm going to talk about the first lady's butt.)
What a bonus! From the ocean of nastiness and confusion that defined this campaign from the beginning, Michelle rose up like Venus on the waves, keeping her coif above water and cruising the coattails of history to present us with a brand-new beauty norm before we knew it was even happening.
Lord knows, it's time the butt got some respect. Ever since slavery, it's been both vilified and fetishized as the most singular of all black female features, more unsettling than dark skin and full lips, the thing that marked black women as uncouth and not quite ready for civilization (of course, it also made them mighty attractive to white men, which further stoked fears of miscegenation that lay at the heart of legal and social segregation).
In modern times, the butt has demarcated class and stature among black society itself. Emphasizing it or not separates dignified black women from ho's, party girls from professionals, hip-hop from serious. (Black women are not the only ones with protruding behinds, by the way, but they're certainly considered its source. How many gluteally endowed nonblack women have been derided for having a black ass? Well, Hillary, for one.
...But Michelle is bringing those two falsely divided minds together in a single presentation -- finally, unity for the real world! Talk about a power base. Thanks to Michelle, looking professional and provocative in a distinctly black way will become not only acceptable but also part of a whole presidential look that's more, well, inclusive.
Now we'll all be able to wear leggings to board meetings; we'll sport pencil skirts sans the long jackets meant to cover the offending rear at big conferences where we have to make a good impression. It turns out that Sir Mix-A-Lot, he of "Baby Got Back" fame, was not a novelty but a prophet.

Whew. I am not surprised this has drawn attention. Kaplan, who has written for The Times, Essence, and LA Weekly, meant to be provocative, so I can't wait to hear what discussion goes on during Kevin's show when he takes calls.

Our next First Lady

Pam Spaulding — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:00:00 GMT

Here's a nice profile of Michelle Obama by Al Jazeera's Monica Villamizar, including a visit to her former school.

On Obama and Lincoln, with dashes of FDR

Switchhttr69 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 04:51:34 GMT

Though all the economic punditry has been going on at length comparing our present predicament to that which Americans faced in the 1930's, the new President-Elect seems to prefer bringing up Abraham Lincoln. As it happens, I've been replaying my DVDs of Ken Burns' The Civil War (not having the wherewithal for cable), and I have tried to attend the descriptions of Lincoln in particular. The comparison may be as apt as Barack Obama supposes.
In many ways, we Americans have it better than our predecessors. Despite the GOP's best efforts, there are still some government structures in place to mitigate the suffering a contracting economy brings in its train. Although we are engaged in two wars, they are in theatres far from our shores, so that our already crumbling infrastructure bears no direct assaults--and can be rebuilt without the distractions of gunfire. Instead of a First Lady whose family (being well-to-do Southerners) owned slaves, who lacked much formal education (relatively speaking), and whose emotional stability came into question, we can look forward to a First Lady who is herself highly educated in the fields of law and public service. [Michelle Obama can also rest assured that her children are far more likely to grow to healthy adulthood; a part of Mary Todd Lincoln's defense must be her repeated bereavements (three of her four sons predeceased her, two before Lincoln himself was murdered in her presence).] And Barack Obama has even won a larger percentage of the popular vote than his illustrious Illinois predecessor, together with congressional majorities of fellow Democratic partisans. Things could certainly be worse.

Yet it will not pay to underestimate the fractures we face. Election pundits have already commented on the splits between younger and older voters, between urban/suburban and rural voters, between those with credentials and degrees and those without. Postmortem debates are already ongoing over the racial and religious categories, particularly in regards Proposition 8. There is also more awareness of the class divide--an elephant in the room if ever there was one. What is more, the GOP has been long practiced at selecting and exploiting divisions for political gain--let's face it, they don't call 'em "wedge issues" for nothing.

We should also realize that we are not the same people our forebears were. I can hear the late Shelby Foote make the point that Civil War battle casualties were massive (30% in several battles "and one after the other you see."): "If we had 10% casualties in a battle today, it would be looked upon as a bloodbath." I don't think we would suffer economic casualties any more gladly, especially the more we know of them; it could be argued that the election returns prove the point. From what I've heard and read, there are many who would agree; I heard a piece on NPR suggesting that Obama shouldn't wait for January 20th and invoking the Constitutional change (made in response to the economic pressures of the Great Depression) that moved the Inauguration back from the original March date. How many times have you heard or read that Obama only has a short honeymoon to effect the change on which he campaigned? Whether it's a Hundred Days à la FDR or the more generous timeframe of the next year or two, the expressions of deadlines remind us that the clock is already ticking.

By all accounts, Obama is an intelligent man and needs no one to explain all this to him. Evidence from his interviews (like those noting Team of Rivals, Doris Kerns-Goodwin's history of Lincoln's diverse cabinet, is a favourite read of his) and the rhetorical patterns of his speeches suggest he sees himself as a Linconesque unifying figure. Presumably, he will act upon this belief.

So when I hear David McCullough's voice remind me that Lincoln "continued to back a plan" to buy slaves from slaveholders and send them back to Africa, and I follow the narrative to the Emancipation Proclamation and hear the rousing chorus sing the "Battle Hymn of the Republic," I want to believe that Obama will make a similar journey toward recognizing all of our civil rights, and that it won't require an actual civil war to convince him to take that road.

Malia Obama: 'don't interrupt my favorite TV shows'

Pam Spaulding — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:45:00 GMT

Kids are really direct -- tonight Barack Obama will air a 30-minute commercial on major networks, and Michelle Obama went on Jay Leno to talk about their daughter Malia's concern that daddy was going to pre-empt her favorite show.

"So he's describing this to my mother. We're at the kitchen table. And Malia sort of overhears it. She's 10. And she says, 'You're going to be on all the TV?' She said, 'Are you going to interrupt my TV'...He said, 'No, we didn't buy time on Disney and Nick.' And she said, 'Oh, good.' And she got up and walked away. She was just like, 'Don't mess with my TV.'"

James Hartline on Michelle Obama's speech at DNC before LGBT delegates

Pam Spaulding — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:00:00 GMT

Oh...my...dog. You'd think the head case from the homosexual stronghold of Hillcrest in San Diego was at the Dem convention with your baristas as we attended the surprise Michelle Obama appearance at the LGBT delegate luncheon. Get a load of this unhinged drama queen's take on her speech. Michelle Obama is a radical homosexualist:

Less then 24 hours after she gleefully paraded her two small daughters onto the DNC stage to convince America of her conservative family credentials, Michelle Obama cast aside the garb of suburban mom and reverted back to the radicalized diva that leftist Democrats have come to idolize. Mrs. Obama rapidly departed from the role of wife and mother which she displayed the night before during her primetime DNC speech to tell a gathering of nearly 300 homosexual delegates to the Democratic National Convention, "We know what the world should look like."
The gay-friendly Mrs. Obama told the enthralled gathering of Democrat homosexual activists that they must work to repeal the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. She also emphasized the need to legalize homosexuality and lesbianism in the United States military.
...Her push to repeal, both the Defense of Marriage Act and the ban on homosexuality and lesbianism in the military, indicates that Michelle Obama is suffering from some type of political schizophrenia. One night she's talking about faith and motherhood and basketball. The next day she's instructing gay extremists to dismantle the institution of marriage. One thing that Michelle Obama is consistently demonstrating by her melodramatic and distasteful flip-flopping on family values is the fact that she will not be settling down to play house anytime soon.
...What other kinds of radical policies will Michelle Obama be pursuing should she gain access to the White House as the First Lady? If she is already seeking to weaken the institution of marriage in America, one can only imagine the kind of philosophical war Michelle and Barak Obama will be waging against family values should they set up housekeeping at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
...This has been a 2008 Election Update from The James Hartline Report:
Now Read Daily By Over 21,000 Concerned Citizens of Conviction!

James Hartline is clearly not well.

Michelle Obama's radical homosexualist speech is below the fold.

Barack believes that if we come together, and work together, we can build the world as it should be.
In the world as it should be:
We work together to repeal laws like DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell, and we oppose divisive constitutional amendments that would strip civil rights and benefits away from LGBT Americans--because discrimination has no place in a nation founded on the promise of equality.
Anyone willing to put in an honest day's work can make a good living and support their family--and employers are held accountable for discrimination against LGBT Americans.
The federal government fully protects all of us--including LGBT Americans--against hate crimes.
In the world as it should be, we recognize that equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights isn't an abstract principle, but goes directly to whether all Americans can lead lives of dignity and freedom.

Video: Michelle Obama at the LGBT delegate luncheon

Pam Spaulding — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:17:23 GMT

Here is the future First Lady's speech (Blend coverage of yesterday's event is here; it was hat tipped by the Obama blog). Michelle Obama spoke yesterday in a surprise visit to the lunch for LGBT delegates hosted by Rep. Barney Frank, with Rep. Tammy Baldwin, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and Human Rights Campaign.

Barack believes that if we come together, and work together, we can build the world as it should be.
In the world as it should be:
We work together to repeal laws like DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell, and we oppose divisive constitutional amendments that would strip civil rights and benefits away from LGBT Americans--because discrimination has no place in a nation founded on the promise of equality.
Anyone willing to put in an honest day's work can make a good living and support their family--and employers are held accountable for discrimination against LGBT Americans.
The federal government fully protects all of us--including LGBT Americans--against hate crimes.
In the world as it should be, we recognize that equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights isn't an abstract principle, but goes directly to whether all Americans can lead lives of dignity and freedom.

Breaking: Michelle Obama attends LGBT luncheon

Pam Spaulding — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:36:36 GMT

UPDATE (Wed, 6:30 AM): more video added below the fold.

"Radical" Russ, Autumn and I are attending the HRC/Victory Fund LGBT Delegate luncheon today. This is hosted by Barney Frank and sponsored by HRC and The Victory Fund.

When Russ and I dropped by the venue to pick up our media credentials, it was announced that Michelle Obama would be making an appearance at this event. This very public support and acknowledgment of the LGBT community during the convention is a clear sign that political change is in the wind. One of the other noticeable things about this luncheon is that it's the only one so far that is overbooked -- there are so many elected officials, activists and supporters of the LGBT community who turned out for this event.

Frank in his opening remarks, noted that no Democrat who voted against the federal marriage amendment was defeated, however several who voted for it and ran for re-election were defeated. (It begs the question -- why, for goodness sake, is it so difficult for some of these spineless elected officials to get their act together to aggressively support the repeal of DADT, hate crimes legislation, and ENDA. The fear expressed, even as support for all of these pieces of legislation has significant public support, is increasingly tiring.)

Tammy Baldwin and the likely next openly gay elected member of Congress, Jared Polis of Colorado, spoke about the promise and the work that we have ahead to achieve equality, and remarked that this country, because of the historic nature of this primary season, has shown the country is capable of electing the first woman president, given the success of Hillary Clinton.

Video of Michelle Obama is below the fold.
UPDATE: Here's the first video as she's introduced to a roaring, enthusiastic crowd. Sorry for the shaky, unedited video - it was crowded on the media riser.

UPDATE 2 (8/27 6AM): The full video I shot.

Guest post on Open Left: sexism and racism - what lies beneath...

Pam Spaulding — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:30:00 GMT

NOTE: This is the guest post I have up on Open Left today. I was invited by front-pager Jon Pincus to participate in a mutual guest-blogging series to bring more diverse perspectives to that progressive blog. The subject selected was the treatment of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama by the mainstream media. Please join in or read the comments over there to see the views and reactions of that reader base. As part of the series, I plan to be active in the comments of my post at Open Left to respond to folks there.

In looking back at the MSM treatment of Hillary Clinton over the course of the primary season, there was an expected eruption of misogyny -- from Chris Matthews Greatest Hits and The Tweety Effect, to the infamous Hillary nutcracker -- yet what I found most interesting was the handwringing over the whole matter. Similarly, there was desperation by some on the left (and right) to declare 2008 a "post-racial" election; they saw their hopes dashed as the bloody chum was tossed out to the hungry media sharks by Clinton surrogates and the usual GOP shills, rife with allusions, counter-charges and just plain old race-baiting idiocy (see Geraldine Ferraro, Andrew Cuomo, Bob Johnson).

More after the jump.

But back to gender. Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton have had to deal with the media's obsession regarding on their appearance, dress (Hil's "pantsuit schedule," Obama evoking Jackie O), and emotional restraint (or perceived lack thereof).

Women who run for political office -- as well as wives of candidates -- undergo an extraordinary amount of scrutiny by the mainstream media. Given the nature of the demographics in most newsrooms and the need for eyeballs and revenue, there is a strong desire to cater to low-info, image and celebrity-obsessed America by playing into the superficial aspects of what a women in the public eye should look like.

I attended the International Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference conference in 2006; the annual event gives openly LGBT elected and appointed officials a chance to get together to hear war stories about running for public office, and they share ideas and strategies on how to run successful campaigns. At the women's roundtable, women at all levels of elective office discussed the consistent advice given by consultants to openly gay lesbians -- everyone has an opinion about what you should wear, the amount of makeup you need, the kind of haircut you must have in order to lower the "fear factor" with potential voters -- it can be ludicrous. One has to sufficiently "femme up" for public political consumption, as well as be on top of your issues, lest people get distracted by thoughts of your sexual orientation.

And as we've seen, gay-baiting charges are in abundance from the right when it came to Hillary Clinton.

Turning to Michelle Obama, there's been baiting of a different sort, most recently revealed in the "misunderstood satire" of the New Yorker's cover art. Editor David Remnick, has come under quite a bit of fire for the decision to run Barry Blitt's illustration. Remnick's defense:

I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say. What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama's - both Obamas' - past, and their politics. I can't speak for anyone else's interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama's supposed "lack of patriotism" or his being "soft on terrorism" or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers.

He neglected to take the direct route and refer specifically to Angela Davis when describing the imagery used by Blitt. A good question to pose here is whether there was something else at work here -- a little unexamined white privilege, of course -- in what makes the generously Afro-ed Mrs. Obama on the cover so intimidating (aside from that rifle slung over her shoulder).

That hair. Some people of a certain age may have no clue who Angela Davis is, but what is deeply embedded in our culture is the sense that kinky hair = bad, ugly, dangerous, non-conformist, animalistic, sluttish, and unseemly -- a visual manifestation of what I call The Secret Black Radical Trojan Horse Agenda that Michelle Obama allegedly represents to paranoid voters who cast a ballot based on the Fear of a Black Planet, the wrath of the Negro Overlords. These people, who will not see the irony, believe that agenda will be fulfilled through the vessel of the pleasant, benign Michelle and Barack Obama not depicted on that cover. This imagery brings all of those fears to the surface, and that big kinky fro is part of the package.

I had been blogging about the politics of hair for quite some time before people started to take the matter seriously (I was also in a documentary about it). The tipping point on the blog was the Don Imus "nappy headed hos" debacle, and the fallout from that in the media gave people a window into the deeply held views -- including self-loathing of black women -- about natural hair. Its very nature screams disobedience to some people, including those who thankfully leave their political correctness at the door so the pathology can be exposed. From my post on March 31, 2006, Neal Boortz just lets it fly:

BOORTZ: For instance, or for goodness sakes, jump in and I'm gonna say -- I'm gonna start out with something controversial. I saw Cynthia McKinney's new hair-do. Have you seen it, Belinda?
SKELTON: No.

BOORTZ: She looks like a ghetto slut.
SKELTON: Well, how is it?

BOORTZ: It's just -- it's hideous.
SKELTON: Is it braided? Or --

BOORTZ: No, it's not braided. It just flies away from her head in every conceivable direction. It looks like an explosion in a Brillo pad factory. It's just hideous. To me, that hairstyle just shows contempt for -- no, it's not an Afro. I mean, no, it just shows contempt for the position that she holds and the body that she serves in. And, I'm sorry, there's just no other way to -- it's just a hideous and horrible looking --

...MARSHALL: It looks better than the braids she was wearing.
BOORTZ: No, the braids had some dignity. They had some class.

MARSHALL: The braids had dignity?
BOORTZ: They had more class than this thing.

MARSHALL: This says, you know, kinda 2000s, you know, stepping up to the plate. Contemporary look, you know?
BOORTZ: She looks like Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence.

Boortz later apologized.

More recently, the paranoia about the Black Radical Trojan Horse and Michelle Obama reached a fever pitch with the breathless rantings of Larry Johnson, who made an ass out of himself promoting a non-existent tape of Mrs. Obama screaming the mucho-retro "whitey" in a public venue.

So with that coursing through the veins of the blogosphere and the MSM, it is no surprise to see how the "radical" Michelle Obama would be portrayed on the cover, satire or no satire.

It is what lies beneath the polite discourse, and it is an uncomfortable subject to have a frank, but constructive dialogue about because race is a third rail topic. It gets a superficial workout, but never examines the white privilege, much the same as male privilege is not explored in the context of women in politics.

Help send Pam's House Blend to Denver...

Michelle Obama connects the dots...from Selma to Stonewall

Pam Spaulding — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:45:00 GMT

Think about this -- are we going to see Cindy McCain or Bill Clinton on the road saying anything like this (via Steve Ralls on Huff Post):

Last night, in a passionate address to the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council, Mrs. Obama delivered a rousing call-to-equality and put her husband on record as a fighter for the full equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. "Barack believes," she said, "that we must fight for the world as it should be, a world where we work together to reverse discriminatory laws."
Invoking "those who marched and bled and died, from Selma to Stonewall," Michelle implored Democrats to continue those early crusaders' march "in the pursuit of a more perfect union."

Let's take a look at this report on what she said to our community. Snippet below the fold.
Log Cabin Republicans and very reluctant Obama voters, is this is a speech McCain, for instance (or even Clinton), would give?

She said he supported a complete repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which only recognizes marriages between men and women and upholds states' rights not to honor same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. He also opposes a "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays in the U.S. military and was against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, she added.
He supports full family and adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples and believes the federal government should not stand in the way of states that opt for domestic partnerships, civil unions or civil marriage, she said. The Illinois senator opposes same-sex marriage.
"Barack believes that we must fight for the world as it should be, a world where together we work to reverse discriminatory laws like DOMA and 'don't ask, don't tell,'" she said. "The world as it is should be one that rejects discrimination of all kinds."
Her husband also has called for a renewed effort to fight HIV and AIDS and has said the African-American community should overcome homophobia, she said.
"Nothing we have to do over the next four or eight years is going to be easy. There will be powerful forces who believe that things should stay just as they are, that everything is fine, and that's where you all come in," she said.

Some out there are pretty suspicious about Barack Obama on LGBT issues (mulling whether we are going to be tossed under the bus), automatically zeroing in on the above bolded statement (and others like it by Obama himself) to the exclusion of all the rest of the policy positions that are in our favor. These are positions that the candidate has held from day one.

He's not going to be the perfect candidate, but neither were any of the other Dems who had a chance of winning in the primary. This observation doesn't mean "don't criticize," all I'm saying is it stretches credibility to say Barack Obama and John McCain are equally against LGBT civil equality.

A more accurate position to argue, and one that Obama should be challenged on, is whether he would favor solving the problem by converting all marriages to civil unions, if they are indeed the same thing in name only. If the objection is about religious marriage, then so be it. Call it what it is. After all, we've already learned in New Jersey, where there are civil marriage and civil unions, that separate in practice has not been equal because the law has yet to catch up with the culture. Social change does not occur overnight, and that's why the Democratic candidates this time around have improved their handling of LGBT issues. Overall they have not been shy about discussing them, even doing some reframing. This is eons better than 2004, when they ran from the issues like the plague.

"The world as it is should be one that rejects discrimination of all kinds," Michelle Obama told the DNC. And, she made clear, should be one that embraces families of all kinds, too.
"A world that recognizes that equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle," she declared, "it's about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom."
"[I]t's not just about the positions you take, it's also about the leadership you provide," she told the crowd at the DNC.

I wouldn't expect Barack Obama to be an advocate of converting all civil marriages to civil unions, but it would be a pointed question to ask and have answered because doing so would affect all married couples only in how the government conveys rights and responsibilities.

Reframing the debate in this way would also force accountability regarding the lame statements out there by John McCain, who supports vague "legal contracts" for same-sex couples. The question at hand is which civil rights are gay couples NOT entitled to. At least Obama has been clear what we are entitled to.

***

Faith in America commented on Michelle Obama's speech:

Brent Childers. executive director of Faith In America, today thanked Michelle Obama for recognizing that history holds a valuable lesson for the pursuit of equality in America.
"When Michelle Obama makes that connection, it will eventually lead Americans to recognize religion-based prejudice and discrimination as the commonality of not only injustices against African-Americans and the gay and lesbian community but also women, interracial couples as well as religious minorities.
"The California Supreme Court in its recent ruling on marriage equality made that same connection...that deep-seated prejudice within majoritarian institutions cannot stand as a barrier to social justice."

On Angry Black Women

TerranceDC — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:10:05 GMT

I read about this foolishness over at Jack and Jill Politics, but I just wanted to break off a piece for myself.

Well.

I've noticed something. No one seems to seems to question whether the angry white men that swept Newt Gingrich and the Republican majority into power in 1994 were justified in their anger. It's assumed that whatever they're angry about they have a right to be angry about.

But not so for the so called "angry black women." Their anger is somehow less "real" and less justified. Perhaps that that's because being angry is a privilege in this culture. Anger, if you are a minority, is dangerous. If you are a woman, or a person of color, gay, etc., your movements must be calm, your voice must be modulated, and your anger must ever show.

Joy is permitted. You may sing, dance, camp it up, and celebrate in your joy. It is a performance, sometimes a command performance, demanded of you even in the midst of despair. Suffering is permitted. It, too, is familiar and non-threatening. It can even be reaffirming to those looking upon it; reaffirming their power and privilege. Sadness is permitted. You are allowed to mourn, and to moan, keen, and cry in your mourning. Fear is permitted. Your fear -- wide-eyed screaming of stunned silence -- is familiar, and recognizable.

You are allowed all of the above, especially in response to another's more "real" anger, but not your own anger. Anger implies entitlement -- to material goods, to power and privilege, or a certain kind of treatment. Anger implies a right to expect something, and is a justifiable response to not receiving one's due. And you aren't due that which you'd have a right to be angry about having been denied.

That's why someone like Cal Thomas can look at someone like Michelle Obama and ask "What's she got to be angry about?" The "angry black woman" has far less of a claim to her anger than the angry white male has to his. After all, what has she been denied that she was ever due in the first place? And whatever she may have seen denied to others in her family or community, her anger is taken as a kind in ingratitude for any degree of success she's enjoyed — no matter how hard she make have worked for it, and no matter against what odds.

In other words, be glad we let you get that far, girl.

I don't know Michelle Obama, but I've known many Michelle Obamas — strong, smart, beautiful, formidable black women who have (as an old hymn says) often "made a way out of no way" for themselves, their families, and their communities. They are passionate about the injustices they've experienced, and those they've seen heaped upon people they love; passionate enough to do something about it. That passion can be taken as anger.

And taken thus, it can be frightening to some people. Perhaps because they worry that the passion they interpret as anger is justified. And because they worry that what Maya Angelou said may be true.

Sometimes people are at your feet, and as the winds of fortune change, they'll be at your throat.

So, I ain't mad at a sistah, but maybe some people worry that someone's got good reason to be mad at them.

Crossposted from The Republic of T.

Obama daughters labeled "nappy headed hos" in 'art' exhibit

Pam Spaulding — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:00:00 GMT

You know, the racism behind a lot of the political antics going on during this election cycle has not been terribly surprising. It's the level of rationalization, excuse-making and countercharges that what we are seeing isn't racism that has been mind-boggling. It reveals the sickness that needs to be cured. We are a diseased nation.

Via Kate @ Shakesville -- Gina of What About Our Daughters launched a Michelle Obama Watch site to combat the right-wing attack machine on the future First Lady. Who knew she was going to have to feature this morally bankrupt "art" by someone named Yazmany Arboleda that, among other things, calls the two Obama daughters "nappy headed-hos."

"My mission as an artist is to raise dialogue and conversation about substantive things," he says, staring through arty glasses that did not have any lenses. "There's so much media time spent on superficial things - like celebrities. My point is to bring substance back." LA Times

The exhibit was shut down before it could open in NYC.

The artist thought his racist views were protected under the Constitution because he was expressing himself through his art. Wrong. Not 30 minutes after Arboleda set up the gallery across the street from the New York Times building, police, feds and secret service swooped in to shut the art exhibit down. While police covered the offensive storefront window with brown paper, Arboleda was led away in handcuffs to be "interrogated".
Arboleda, 27, learned the hard way that freedom has its limits. Later, in an interview, he said: "It's art. It's not supposed to be harmful. It's about character assassination - about how Obama and Hillary have been portrayed by the media." He added, "It's about the media."

OK, let's try to pretend that an exhibit that includes a picture of the cover of Barack Obama's "Audacity of Hope" book altered to say "The Audacity of Black Hope", as well as hanging nooses and an enormous phallus on the wall labeled "once you go Barack" is truly an artistic statement -- what is the purpose of assailing Michelle and Barack's children Sasha and Malia Obama in the name of "art"? They aren't running for office.

To prove himself as an equal opportunity offender, Arboleda also featured an Assassination of Hillary Clinton exhibit.

So, the big picture is that the whole assassination thing is what deep-sixed this, as the artist learned the hard way. But stepping back from that aspect of it, should this have been shut down, or is it freedom of speech and Arboleda's work should have been seen and commented upon by the public who saw it first hand?

Hat tip, Louise.

Faux News calls Michelle Obama 'Baby Mama'

Pam Spaulding — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:30:00 GMT

UPDATE: Fox News Senior VP of Programming Bill Shine came up with this lame statement: "A producer on the program exercised poor judgment in using this chyron during the segment."

We are deep into the I'm not sh*tting you territory with this one. Last week, E.D. Hill bleated about the Obama's fist bump/dap as a secret communication between terrorists. Now we have the network serving this up, during a segment with anchor Megyn Kelly and right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin who is, naturally, a FNC contributor:

Baby Mama? If Fox is going to try to float that they are just being "down with the Negroes" in this landmark campaign, the bigoted network should at least get its sh*t right. Oliver Willis:

So here's the thing (because during this campaign I'm apparently learning that we black people have our own secret code and hand signals so this stuff has to be explained like you are speaking to a child at times), using the phrase "baby mama" to describe this woman implies that like too many people in the black community, she is a mother on her own with no man around doing his job.
Except, Barack and Michelle Obama are the exact opposite of this, and that is one of the reason America - especially black America - are so proud of them.

Let's go to the Urban Dictionary. Does this describe Mrs. Obama to you?

baby mama. A term used to define an unmarried young woman (but can be a woman of any age) who has had a child. As mentioned before in another definition, most of the time it is used for when it was simply a sexual relationship, compared to ex-wife or girlfriend. Usually this has a negative connotation, a lot of baby mamas are seen as desperate, gold digging, emotionally starved, shady women who had a baby out of spite or to keep a man. Sometimes they may act like this because of missed child support payments, unfulfilled promises by the father, or convenient sex by the father. Either or both may exist in any situation.

It's high time that Fox News just stop with the pussyfooting around with these games and run the more direct "nigger" on any Chyron running over video of the Obamas. Being a generous person, I'll help Fox out - a few more direct descriptions for them to use are below the fold.
Let Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor school Faux News:

It's going to be a wonderful general election season, don't you think?

UPDATE: It's no surprise that Michelle Malkin (who infamously defends Japanese-American internment during WWII) is at the center of this segment, as Liza points out.

The authors of Malkin Watch and Liberal Avenger wrote an important piece called "Ghost Blogging". Professor of Law, Eric Mueller, who notoriously fisked (the) Malkin racist and anti-immigrant manifesto, "The Case For Internment", had noticed the writing pattern as well and went even as far as to say (after being attacked for attacking Malkin's racist screed) :

Of course, when a female, nonwhite blogger condemns rather than defends the Japanese American internment, or argues for protecting rather than trashing immigrants' rights, or takes the opposite side of just about anything Malking writes, it's really not so attention-grabbing, is it?
Gee. Could that have anything to do with why Malkin gets so much attention on the right?

In other words, Michelle Malkin has always been "Michelle Malkin & Co", most specifically, Jesse Malkin doing most of the writing with Michelle as the front of the operation.
Which is why having Michelle Malkin at the center of this "baby mama drama" is so important. Ever the opportunists, "Malkin & Co." seeks out race baiting opportunities the way sharks seek blood in the water : If it is something "Malkin & Co" can profit from, she and her husband run to it and unleash the racist wurlitzer on her blog. By the way --do you know that the multi-tasker Michelle Malkin is also CEO of HotAir.com, a conservative new media company?
...By having Malkin at the center of the "Obama Baby Mama" drama, Fox News can get away with one more day of cashing in on extremist propaganda, all the while attacking the presumptive first African American President and First Lady of the United States.

Also check out Echidne of the Snakes' take on this, as well as Jesse Taylor's discovery of an Obama doll on the market -- it's a monkey in a suit.