The Political Voices of Women

Here is a guest post by Cynthia Samuels from Don’t Gel Too Soon.

OK. What do we think about this? I can tell you one thing. It hurts to look at it, even though I guess I understand what the artist, Barry Blitt, says he was trying to do. Rachel Sklar’s Huffington Post interview with the magazine’s gifted editor David Remnick explains further.

Obviously I wouldn’t have run a cover just to get attention — 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. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.

The free speech and marketplace of ideas concepts that I’ve treasured all my life clash with my reaction to all of this; I know that. The Constitutional protection of freedom of speech exists to guarantee the right both to speak and to hear not only popular, but also unpopular ideas. We don’t need to protect the popular ones; it’s the ideas that enrage people that need the protection. And I’m all for that.

But for a responsible and respected publication like The New Yorker to abuse that freedom by offering such blatant stereotypes to make its point, particularly when the subjects are the first African American Presidential (Columbia and Harvard-educated) candidate and his (Princeton and Harvard-educated) wife, an accomplished attorney — each of whose life trajectory suggests two stars who did everything expected of them to grow into exciting, productive citizens — seems to me abusive and dangerous. In an effort to make a point about the hate that’s being distributed concerning these two, they’re feeding it.

It will be interesting to see how many right wing websites and publications make use of this image. There’s been plenty of reaction so far and most of it is far more sophisticated than I could dream of being. I’m having too much trouble with my emotional, gut sense of right and wrong to be very thoughtful; this just feels wrong – perhaps even more so because of who printed it. I’ve been a New Yorker groupie since I was a high school kid in Pittsburgh wishing I was in Greenwich Village living the life of Susie Rotolo. Like this – walking through the Village with Bob Dylan.

—

So it’s particularly disturbing to me that something so terribly offensive was pubished by this beloved icon.

The stereotypes don’t fit the Obamas, obviously. That’s what the New Yorker is trying to demonstrate by feeding these stereotypes out there in such a naked way. But even if they did, how many of us who ever cared about anything is willing to stand by every position we adopted in our younger days?

Congressman Bobby Rush was a Black Panther. Now he’s chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, serves on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and is a co-chairman of the Congressional Biotech Caucus. Isn’t that what we want? Growth.Even if the Obama’s were flamers back then (and I don’t think they were, by a long shot), isn’t the American way for young activists to rebel, maybe the wrong way, early in their lives then “grow up” to ultimately help to make change from inside? Justice Hugo Black, one of the great justices of the 20th century, started out as a member of the Ku Klux Klan – then went on to be a staunch defender of civil liberties for all. If we deny our future leaders the capacity to grow and question while they’re young, we will end up with leaders who may be what we deserve, but not who we need, by a long shot.I guess what I’m saying is that this effort to force Americans to confront political trash talk by offering up a visual representation of it all is, to me, a terrible mistake. An image that casts a shadow over the remarkable symbolic gift of this landmark candidacy – an image that lingers like a scar.

[cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog]

Also See:

McCain, Obama campaigns agree: New Yorker cover is not satire.

This is from a post by Lisa Witter for The Huffington Post…

I’ve got whiplash. That’s how quickly the national discussion of women’s leadership has changed from one of the merits of an accomplished senator turned potential first female president to the clothes of the potential first ladies.

Media coverage everywhere is “Michelle vs. Cindy.” Where do they buy their dresses? Do they make bacon for breakfast? And, of course, which one can we compare to Jackie O?

Is anyone else as appalled as I am at how quickly we have gone back to thinking of women in the oldest of stereotypes – as only wives and mothers?

I’m a wife. I’m a mother. I love my family. But I’m other things, too. We all know that the presidents’ wives play an important role in policy and diplomacy in one way or another.

READ FULL POST HERE

What I think: Although this is said to be a rumor (Michelle Vetoes Hillary as a possible VP), it wasn’t surprising to me at all. But it is very troubling, especially if it’s true. Having a strong woman as a First Lady is a good thing, and getting her input on possible running mates is acceptable. But, Michelle Obama putting her foot down on Hillary as a possible VP, is unacceptable…It’s just not her place to make that decision. Months ago, I heard Michelle Obama make comments that if her husband was not elected this time around, America would not get another chance at him. I didn’t like the tone or the implication then, and I feel the same way now.

Here is a post by Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily — She’s The Boss?

For all the complaints from some progressives about having Bill Clinton back in the White House as the First Spouse, I find this little tidbit interesting:

Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama.

The Democratic front-runner’s wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party’s nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.

Sure it’s just a rumor, but plausible it seems. Michelle Obama strikes me as a strong willed woman, not unlike myself and Hillary Clinton who will fight to get what she wants. That’s fine and dandy… but not when it comes to choosing our next Vice President. It’s just that she’s a little jaded you know… and that’s not a good reason to not choose Clinton as VP. Personally, I see Hillary more prone offering the VP slot to Obama than the other way around. And the buzz from the Obama camp, rumor or not, sure seems to be heading that way — no VP slot for HRC.

If there is any credence to the rumor, it sure would make it even more apparent that Barack Obama is not interested in Unity.

Also See:

Michelle Won’t Let Barack Pick Hillary as VP

Michelle Obama Has Spoken — I have a bet with a coworker who believes the combined ticket will occur while I believe there is no way in hell that they will run together. It would take credibility away from both of them to combine (though most politicians rarely worry about credibility). He portrays her as part of the politics as usual crowd of DC and she says he cannot garner the white vote and has not been properly vetted. These are valid arguments and show how the ugliness of the protracted campaign further hamstrings the Democratic party and its choices.

I believe there is one factor here than trumps all others and that is the Michelle Obama factor. She does not like Hillary and she also knows that Hillary as VP brings the baggage of Bill who will hover. They would make Obama an outsider in his administration. Not to mention the fact that Mrs. Obama does not like Hillary Clinton and is not happy with the tactics employed by the Clinton campaign.

What do you think? Is Michelle Obama having too much influence on Barack?