Extreme Offense

I had a revelation in the shower this morning, after reading yet another abusive superdelegate e-mail over at Cannonfire. To get right to the point, I think Democrats are playing extreme offense. By extreme offense I mean I think they are dropping the “soft” part of their base, keeping the bully-faction, and going after the Republican bully-faction. It’s the only thing that makes sense. I suspect they want to gut the Democratic and Republican parties both, purge on one end, all gluttony on the other. They want to change the game entirely by trading players and points. What else explains their outrageous actions both during the campaign season and since? What else can possibly explain the treatment of every day voters at the hands superdelegates via these e-mails? Have you ever heard of such a thing yourself? Of any politician or Party employee actually thinking it’s a good idea to say things like these:

Donna Brazile: “Stop the hate. Not sure if you know, but we are keeping copies of all these emails in the archives. Yes, you are not going to get away with pretending to be for Hillary. She is a leader of the Dem party.”

Former DNC chair Don Fowler: “I must confess a bit of fatigue and irritation with people who continue to carp, complain, and criticize the results of the primary and lay down conditions for their support. The Los Angeles Lakers didn’t establish conditions to recognize the Boston Celtics as NBA Champions; Roger Federer did not demand concessions before recognizing that Rafael Nadal defeated him at Wimbledon.

California DNCer Garry Shay: “The racist bullsh**I have gotten from my fellow Clinton supporters has been enough to make me puke. You have a choice. No one would be forcing you. It is a choice. A choice you will have to live with. 100 years in Iraq if McCain gets elected. Thousands more dead American Soldiers.”

WA Democratic Chairman Dwight Pelz: “Man, you have to chill. Try tennis.”

CA superdelegate Steven Ybarra: “Good for you, when the fascists come in the middle of the night to take you to a concentration camp, remember how you voted. Take me off your whiner list . . .then tell them to stop calling me telling me that they are going to vote for mccain. i am would rather vote for a rabid dog than any Fascist republican like mccain. read the declaration of independence.”

DNCer Ben Johnson: “When God was giving out brains…you thought he said trains…and you missed yours. Who gives a croc what you do, its your business fool.”

AZ superdelegate Carolyn Warner: “GOD WILL GUIDE THE HAND OF JUDGMENT THAT WILL STRIKE YOU DOWN! Do not email us again. Thank you.”

No professional in their right mind would ever think it was appropriate to respond to concerns from the field in this manner. If the DNC were a company, either public or private, each of these people would be out of job as soon as those e-mails came to light. And they have come to light, and have even been published on Politico. The only way any professional person would ever send anything like these responses is if their boss told them the point of contact’s business didn’t matter, and to get rid of them as soon as possible. Which brings me to the next part of my revelation.

Do you remember this from that New Yorker article that no one ever read, because everyone was too busy talking about the cover?

One day in the spring of 2001, about a year after the loss to Rush, Obama walked into the Stratton Office Building, in Springfield, a shabby nineteen-fifties government workspace for state officials next to the regal state capitol. He went upstairs to a room that Democrats in Springfield called “the inner sanctum.” Only about ten Democratic staffers had access; entry required an elaborate ritual-fingerprint scanners and codes punched into a keypad. The room was large, and unremarkable except for an enormous printer and an array of computers with big double monitors. On the screens that spring day were detailed maps of Chicago, and Obama and a Democratic consultant named John Corrigan sat in front of a terminal to draw Obama a new district. Corrigan was the Democrat in charge of drawing all Chicago districts, and he also happened to have volunteered for Obama in the campaign against Rush.

Obama’s former district had been drawn by Republicans after the 1990 census. But, after 2000, Illinois Democrats won the right to redistrict the state. Partisan redistricting remains common in American politics, and, while it outrages a losing party, it has so far survived every legal challenge. In the new century, mapping technology has become so precise and the available demographic data so rich that politicians are able to choose the kinds of voter they want to represent, right down to individual homes. A close look at the post-2000 congressional map of Bobby Rush’s district reveals that it tears through Hyde Park in a curious series of irregular turns. One of those lines bypasses Obama’s address by two blocks. Rush, or someone looking out for his interests, had carved the upstart Obama out of Rush’s congressional district.

In truth, Rush had little to worry about; Obama was already on a different political path. Like every other Democratic legislator who entered the inner sanctum, Obama began working on his “ideal map.” Corrigan remembers two things about the district that he and Obama drew. First, it retained Obama’s Hyde Park base-he had managed to beat Rush in Hyde Park-then swooped upward along the lakefront and toward downtown. By the end of the final redistricting process, his new district bore little resemblance to his old one. Rather than jutting far to the west, like a long thin dagger, into a swath of poor black neighborhoods of bungalow homes, Obama’s map now shot north, encompassing about half of the Loop, whose southern portion was beginning to be transformed by developers like Tony Rezko, and stretched far up Michigan Avenue and into the Gold Coast, covering much of the city’s economic heart, its main retail thoroughfares, and its finest museums, parks, skyscrapers, and lakefront apartment buildings. African-Americans still were a majority, and the map contained some of the poorest sections of Chicago, but Obama’s new district was wealthier, whiter, more Jewish, less blue-collar, and better educated. It also included one of the highest concentrations of Republicans in Chicago.

“It was a radical change,” Corrigan said. The new district was a natural fit for the candidate that Obama was in the process of becoming. “He saw that when we were doing fund-raisers in the Rush campaign his appeal to, quite frankly, young white professionals was dramatic.”

All bolding mine.

What if this same thing were being done with Democratic Party politics? What if Obama had convinced a small number of insiders starting with the most easily corrupted, like, say, nearly all of our Democratic Senators, to redesign the game? Just like they did with this gerry-mandered map. Say they reasoned that they kept losing, so the best chance to win would be to take some players from the other side, eating into their numbers, at the same time they demoralized factions within the Democratic Party they saw as unnecessary or uncooperative? This would definitely include women’s groups.

To bring another thread in, this also goes along with Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong’s book Crashing the Gate. I refer you to chapter 2, This Ain’t No Party:

The Democratic Party for too long has been a group of constituencies instead of a party. ~Howard Dean, June 4, 2005

Yes, that Howard Dean, the head of the DNC. That’s how the chapter opens, and then it goes on to bemoan the fact that the Democratic Party is a “gaggle of special and narrow interests, often in conflict with each other, rarely working in concert to advance their common cause.” This rhetoric ignores entirely the purpose of the Democratic Party, which is to unite the powerless against the powerful. Of course it’s a gaggle of interests groups. But what Kos and Jerome are actually arguing here is against accountability. They are complaining that elected Democrats have to be beholden to Democratic voters, who are interested in issues. This is different than the appeal of Republicans, which is focused on so-called character. Of course, Republicans have to rely on cults of personality, because they can’t run on issues, as their rhetoric deliberately obfuscates issues to disguise the fact that they perform so badly on them. This is the refreshing–and make no mistake, now threatened–difference between Democrats and Republicans.

But it won’t be if these folks have their way. The second chapter of Crashing the Gate goes on to name the constituencies, and the so-called problems with each one of them. What they all have in common, of course, is that they demand accountability to their cause. But Markos and Jerome argue that these groups should just “get over it” already, and accept the fact that we have to have pro-life Democrats, that we have to have blue dogs, and Bush dogs. They argue that these kinds of Democrats can be disciplined in caucus into voting Democratic, so the only thing that matters if the -D after their name. It is that last argument that reveals their true authoritarian inclinations. Rather than finding people to elect as Democrats who have actual Democratic values, they’ll elect anyone who claims to be a Democrat and then try to force them into agreement. Of course what they are really doing here is promising out of both sides of their mouths, both to the candidates and the voters. And the result is their personal enrichment.

This kind of politicking plays right into my extreme offense theory. Take out a bunch of the Republican side via conversion (which leads to a direct reduction of their numbers), while purging the factions within in your own group that will hold you accountable and prove unsavory to the new converts. Don’t women’s groups fit this bill to a T?

So do gays and poor black men, both of which the Obama camp has thrown under the bus. And why wouldn’t they, if these are their values? Winning over ethics, purging for personal gain, cronyism. Those are their values. And gays are, what, 3, maybe 4% of Democratic voters? Poor black men, well, that’s what all of this rhetoric about “black fathers” is all about. What Obama means by “black fathers” is poor black men, who are often fathers because of their lack of access to both education and birth control, and who are also, co-incidentally, often disenfranchised via criminal records. It’s sick, because it’s using the racism of the system against people of his own race, but then black leaders taking advantage of regular black folks is nothing new at all.

This would also explain some otherwise inexplicable decisions, like going after evangelicals. Or selecting a Republican VP, having Republicans in his cabinet, and his naked appeals to them throughout the campaign, (hos whole career, actually) etc. It also explains the constant attempts to provoke more Clinton Derangement Syndrome. The Clinton’s can have no part in extreme offense, for they are Democrats with actual Democratic values, and they would object. And people might listen to them.

Extreme offense is what Republicans did to Democrats in 1980, for the record. It’s the reason for the term Reagan Democrats. But as Anglachel has pointed out, it wasn’t working class folks so much as middle class and upper middle class folks who migrated. Sound familiar? Doesn’t it look just like the Obama campaign is taking out the trash? I suspect they think they are with this little gambit. Extreme offense is new right now, an unproven theory, on the left anyway. All it needs is one big win, like Obama and the presidency, and it will be validated. That’s why this fight is so imperative. I think it’s also why we are getting such abuse from powerful Democrats, and why we are constantly feeling outraged every time they cross another line. That’s exactly what they want.

Recreate ’48

Dr. Violet Socks, over at the Reclusive Leftist busted Tweety telling the truth on Morning Joe the other day. I can’t get the video to embed here for some reason (feel free to offer tips in comments), but here’s the link.

There’s a lot that is interesting about this clip, and Dr. Socks discusses the truth-telling aspect of it, so check her out for that angle. I want to give Matthews the Erin Burnett treatment for just a minute, because you gotta reap what you sow sometimes, and Matthews should have his looks critiqued wherever he goes until he finally gets it. We’ll get to the re-creating part in just a sec.

Check out that video! Does Tweety look like shit or what? He must have been up late tying one on with a show producer and whatever politico visited his show the night before, right? He reeks of hangover! I love the awful puffiness all over his face, and how it makes his expressions so different from his usual evening, well-rested, made-up look. He actually reminds me of my dad, another pathetic alcoholic who hates women.

And did you see how he treated John Capeheart, who is so very obviously gay? Oh yeah, his expression went from one of talking with the big boys to one of talking down to the little women. It was muy interesante to see that he holds gay men in the same contempt he holds women.

Okay, with that out of my system, let’s talk 1948. Because Matthews brought it up. That little bit of history he discussed is true. Everyone thought Dewey was going to win. The young, articulate, charismatic, good looking Governor of New York was slated to win. The press, with it’s long habit of hubris was so convinced that some, starting ironically enough with The Chicago Tribune, pre-printed the results before the election was officially over. But they were wrong–Dewey did not win. Truman did, thanks to his quiet train campaign, and his rhetoric of “telling the truth.” His voters told him to, “Give ’em hell, Harry,” and he did.

Giving ’em hell is exactly what another group that sprang up this spring wants to do. Have you heard of Recreate ’68? They got some attention during the primary campaign when several o-bots at various A-list community blogs began to try suggest that they needed to join that group if “Clinton stole the [primary] election.” Funny, huh? Well, I’ve been following up a little with them this morning, and they seem like a legitimate, interested group that have a lot of activities planned for Denver. They’re basically anti-war and anti-corporate protesters along the lines of those who protest things like the G-8 Summit. I’ll definitely be watching them, and h/t to them, Tweety, and Dr. Socks for giving me the idea for something more in line with my interests and abilities.

Recreate ’48 is a free idea I had for anyone who wants to push it. Of course we wait until after the Convention, but I hope it’s become clear enough by now to some of you that our chances there are slim. Leadership Dems treat us worse and worse by the day. Their e-mails and other correspondence sound like a bunch bratty high school athlete’s talking trash before a big game. They do not get it at all.

We do need to keep pushing the open convention angle into the press, and get the meme that it’s not over out there. But we also need a fall-back plan, and I think Recreate ’48 might be just the thing. It’s not an organization as much as an idea. A selling point, if you will. Americans hate to be told what’s going to happen, or how they should be or what they should do in general. Thwarting the will of the power structure has been a great American past time since the Revolutionary War. So a whispering campaign to recreate 1948 might be a useful technique.

It makes more sense that recreating ’68, because ’68 was a very scary Convention, with lots of violence and police brutality, and it was part of the reason Dems have the Dirty Fucking Hippie monkey on their back still, after 40 years. No, I think a quiet declination of Obama in the middle of a media orgasm-fest over him might be just the thing we need to teach these out of touch people a thing or two. Recreate ’48’s focus is on the election instead of the Convention. However it happens, Obama has to lose or we keep corrupt asshats like Brazile and Dean forever. We have to purge these Republicans and DINOs from our party, or the two major parties will be the same, and we will have no real choice. And choice is a bedrock Democratic value. It’s worth protecting.

Denver Update: I’m Leavin’ on a Jet Plane

Don’t know when I’ll be back again…

Well, okay, I do know. August 28. Heh. I bought my plane ticket this morning! I am so excited! Thanks again to P&L readers who made this happen. I can’t wait to show you how worth it it will be from the ground in Denver.

More on Dreams

Dreams From Our Mothers sparked a bit of discussion in the Pumasphere. The response has been interesting, with the personal part of the post getting a lot of appreciation, but other parts some disagreement, as evidenced in comments at Corrente. I wanted to follow up, because I realize in hindsight that my initial post may have been a bit confusing. I was talking about several different issues, none of which get any airplay in the ongoing culture-maker that is our media. I’ve had a chance to contemplate some more on these issues since posting that essay and want to delve deeper here too. Clarity so often comes in the wake of revelation.

The issues are:

  1. The disparity in treatment of single mothers and absentee fathers is evidence of sexism in the culture.
  2. How we train kids to feel about their single mothers and absentee fathers are tools to instill latent misogyny.
  3. White women having biracial children out of wedlock is a trend that has directly led to a decrease in racism.

Now, you’ll just have to forgive me for my sloppy rhetorical presentation. When you’re pioneering new land, mistakes happen and necessity becomes the mother of invention. These issues would not seem to be well-suited to each other, as the only thing they have in common is the presence of single mothers, and seem to diverge from there. But they are brought together by the figure that is Barack Obama, made obvious in a book he wrote, and I was trying to discuss these issues and my personal experience in the context of having read that book. Perhaps I should have written two posts, but these ideas are present throughout his life.

While Dreams From My Father is sexist, that wasn’t my point, and I realize my mistake is in putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, in one question:

Do you need any more evidence to know exactly how misogynistic Obama, and the culture at large, are?

Had I inverted “culture at large” and “Obama” perhaps I would have been clearer. But since I have your attention, let me expound: The very idea that a person should feel grief for an absent father and little to no appreciation for the present mother is an expression of latent misogyny. The person experiencing the grief may or may not be to blame, because we are told a lot of lies from very early on about the nature of parents, we set those values in stone very young, and they are difficult to correct. The correct emotion to feel in the event of having a father who doesn’t give a damn is to feel anger at the father and gratitude towards the mother, if she is a good care-giver. But that doesn’t often happen, especially with males. If you tell someone this, they may come to accept that and internalize it, but because the culture is so busy protecting male privilege and projecting male fantasies, that truth rarely occurs to individuals on their own.

And that’s what all of this is about after all, isn’t it? This judging of mothers? Poison the first female, and you’ve inculcated a boy’s club member for life, even if the member is a female. Male privilege remains protected, and you’ve got a useful little emotional lure—buried deep—that you can just tug on a little bit to provoke what you need. Obama’s going to use that very lure to send out the dog whistle to boomer men, who feel especially alienated from their fathers, even though they were present, and young people, more than ¼ of which come from single parent homes, mostly female-headed. The first idea, about the disparity of treatment, is particularly important to discuss in the context of Obama’s life and current campaign because of that dog whistle.

But, rather than saying that Obama is to blame for this dynamic, I’m trying to say he’s simply subject to it, just like any other child who grew up in such ignorance. I don’t blame him for being in this spot in the first place, I blame him for ostensibly being so smart and wanting to unite and change the world, and for missing the most obvious opportunity in his life to do so. (If that opportunity offered him anything in the way of privilege or power, I believe he’d have taken it already.)

My point (in hindsight, of course) with issue # 3 is that, even if the culture doesn’t value the work of raising children, there can be little argument that it does now value decreasing racism. So why don’t our so-called cultural leaders, our elected officials too, point this out? I’m a lone voice coming to you from Jeffersonville, IN, population 30,000, and very few people are listening to me. Yet this concept is simple and obvious. That this issue isn’t yet talked about, even though Elephant Obama is in the middle of the room proves that issues #1 & # 2 are true, and that what I’ve been saying all along is also true: Women’s issues are deliberately pitted against African-American issues because African-American issues are less threatening to the power structure than women’s issues are.

I could have perhaps explained some of this better in Dreams From My Mother, but to be quite frank, some of it only occurred to me in hindsight. I was sort of stumbling around in the dark myself. And I could write a book about the myriad secret or ignored issues related to single motherhood and some ways to set all of that right. It’s way too long for a blog post, and I’m not doing this professionally or anything. I guess my post served its purpose—it got people to think and discuss some ideas, even if they may reject another. I do think it’s interesting how the race-angle got way more sympathy than the woman-angle.

Finally, a couple of the comments at Corrente were a tad harsh in their critique of the woman’s angle (even as they praised the race angle). One person implied I might be guilty of “excessive politicization” and another said I had suggested Obama hates his mother and all women, when I suggested no such thing. They’re perfectly entitled to their opinion, but I think the issues are political in the first place, and I suspect the subtext of these arguments is that these are women’s issues (even though they aren’t and shouldn’t be). Which means, of course, that they’re feminist issues. Those two comments in particular read like so many habitual pooh-poohs of feminism I have heard since the 1980s from people who haven’t even bothered their lazy little heads to think about what they’re pooh-poohing—they just paint whatever it is as feminist and are then trained to automatically dismiss it. I guess a few of us are guilty of sloppy rhetoric lately.

Obama’s Prayer

Hell, it is Sunday, after all…

Oh. My. Word. If this doesn’t just say it all about Obama:

Lord — Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.

That’s right, given the chance to pray at one of the holiest sites in all of Christendom (and a few other -doms as well), running for the President of the U.S. and Leader of the Free World®, Obama asks for protection for his family and himself first. And then doesn’t even mention the U.S. or Iraq or people dying unjustly around the world, the children starving daily, etc! No, it’s all about him and his. As long as god protects them, Obama will do whatever it is he imagines god wants him to do, just like George W. Bush.

I’m not a big fan of prayer anyway, and it took me a while after I became atheist to stop doing it. Ultimately I decided it was as childish and impotent as pleading for compassion from my actual father and stopped. But it was a hard habit to break. And while I did my fair share of selfish praying–most people do–I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have done something as stupid as leaving such a selfish prayer in a place where people were watching if I were running for president. It kinda misses the whole alleged point of Christ, wouldn’t you agree?

Then there’s this:

“The notes placed between the stones of the Western Wall are between a person and his maker. It is forbidden to read them or make any use of them,” Rabinovitz told Army Radio.

The newspaper’s action “damages the Western Wall and damages the personal, deep part of every one of us that we keep to ourselves,” he added.

I don’t buy the criticism of invasion of privacy. He’s an idiot and an amateur for even doing it, and no one who leaves a note in public is immune from criticism. And cry me a river over the so-called “damage.” What about all of the “personal, deep parts” every single religion on earth has damaged with its manipulations and crusades? Huh? I don’t hold any reverence for any religion, or the ridiculous rules a religion might make to protect the faithful from legitimate mockery. Every note there is fair game, as far as I’m concerned. As Elbert Hubbard said:

To avoid criticism: Say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.

I’d add: Don’t leave your prayer-notes in public.

Dreams from Our Mothers

As a long-time single mother (13 years before I got married last fall), I have thought a lot about single motherhood and its impact on the culture. It’s a difficult subject to talk about, because there are a lot of assumptions floating around out there, and it seems like everyone has an opinion they are more interested in voicing than in hearing another’s. And then there are the kids, kids who resent not having a father, like Obama clearly did in his book Dreams from My Father. And there are a lot of them now.

We could have this discussion using statistics, but I don’t think that would provide you with the real picture, since statistics are often misleading. For instance, according to the U. S. Census Bureau, single parent households accounted for 5% of all families in 1970. By 1996, we were up to 9%. Of course, those numbers are misleading, because the population has increased from 203 million Americans to over 300 million today. 9% of the latter is significantly higher than 9% of the former.

No, I think we’re going to have to rely on personal experience and visual evidence obvious to anyone willing to take a look around. Something is happening (and has been happening for some time) in America that is directly correlated with single motherhood. It has to do with race and the increase in biracial children. To give you a taste, let me tell you my personal story.

My sister is five years older than me. She is my mother’s first child and herself the product of a single parent home for much of her childhood (We’ll call her “T”). She was born “out-of-wedlock” as they like to say, a term they used to replace “bastard” in the 1960s. My Mom was born right before the baby boom hit, so she was a bit early in trending away from marriage in 1964. Well, more accurately, my sister’s father was ahead in trending away from marriage. My Mom, I believe, would have married him in a heartbeat.

My Mom raised my sister by herself, with assistance from her family, until “T” was 5, and my Mom met my Dad. They got married upon learning they were pregnant with me. My father adopted my sister. My brother followed a year later and completed our family. Ten years later, when “T” was 15 and I was 10, my parents divorced, and life got a little crazy for us for a while. My Mom went back to school to become a nurse, and we moved into the housing projects at 13th and Hill in Louisville, KY. We spend three informative years as minority whites there.

Skipping right through, my sister had a baby by the time she was 17. My Mother, driven by her own shame at having a child outside of marriage, signed for my sister to marry before she was 18. That marriage did not last, of course, and a mere year and a half later she had another baby by another man, even though she was, and still is to this day (20-some-odd years later), married to her first husband. Both of those children were white.

Another two years passed, and my sister was pregnant again. This time she warned my Mom and my Grandmother that she did not know who the father was, and that the child could be biracial. We would just have to wait and see.

I should give you a little back-story on my Grandmother here. She raised 8 kids, had her first one die when he was just 2 years old, was married thrice, and was, as were many of her generation and culture, as racist as July days are long. She was born and raised in Barren County, KY, one of 12 children, and one half a set of twins.

A female business owner (before such a thing was common) for most of her adult life, I have many reasons to respect her now, but back then I was a 16 year old who’d been politically radicalized early by my life experiences. And I and that little gray-haired old lady had it out over those 8 months or so. She expressed her hurt over my sister’s unknown pregnancy many times before my niece was born, and we had a fight every time she did so. When my sister finally went to the hospital to give birth, it was my grandmother that picked me up from my school and took me to see “T” and the new baby.

I don’t know if you are aware, but it is not always obvious what the race of a newborn is, especially biracial children. “N,” my niece, was no exception. She had a slight “tint” to her skin, but so did my sister, who tanned much easier than I did with my Dutch-Irish-Germanic roots. My sister knew, though, as soon as she saw her that she was biracial, and told my mother, who dutifully reported it to my Grandmother.

My Grandmother railed and railed and railed in that car on the drive. She was so angry. I grew angrier listening to her. When we arrived at the hospital and she went to grab for the door handle, I quickly and quietly pushed the button for the automatic locks on her white Thunderbird and locked us in. Then I lit into her.

“It’s a child, Grandma, a child,” I told her. “Nothing more.” So what if she hated black people, I told her. That was just a by-product of how she was raised and all she’d ever known. The world was changing, and she’d better catch up before she was left behind, old and bitter and alienated because of her prejudice. She cried, and stayed mad. I cried too, more out of frustration, and we finally went up to see my sister and the new baby. Had I known what would happen next, I wouldn’t have bothered with the argument in the car.

My Grandmother walked into the room as if a broom were stuck straight up her ass, she was so tense. She glared at my sister and my mother both. And then her eyes fell upon that babe. That sweet, precious, beautiful, still-blue-eyed baby. I wish I could describe how her face changed, how the wrinkles upon it seemed to re-align themselves into an expression I had never seen on her before. She gave in, completely and utterly, in the face of that child. Every shred of prejudice she had ever had fell away in that moment and it never returned. Never. My Mother, who was also prejudiced, but to a lesser extent, was equally changed. “Buddha Baby,” as I called her, for her fat, round, brown belly and her white diapered get-up, became a beloved member of our family, and in the process, eradicated racism within it.

This scenario has been repeated hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of times across this great land since the 1960s. One of my best friends has a similar story with her father and her biracial daughter, now 17 years old. When my friend gave birth to her daughter, her father disowned her, and refused to speak to her for over a year, even while she and the baby lived with them. But as that baby grew, her father’s heart had to give way in the face of such innocence, and to this day he is one of the most vocal supporters of Civil Rights that I personally know.

A similar scenario happened with Stanley Ann Dunham and her parents, I’m sure. No matter how enlightened they were, 1961 was still at the beginning of this curve, and biracial children were rare. And Stanley Ann was young, 18 years old recall. There should be no doubt that they became more enlightened as a result of Barack being born into their family. The thought that I alluded to last night, that I have been thinking about for years, but which crystallized as I read Dream From My Father is that no one that I can see is discussing this dynamic. It’s America’s dirty little secret, because of a lot of these children are born “out-of-wedlock,” to young, single mothers, but it’s had an impact, maybe more of an impact than the targeted enculturation processes inserted into the education system.

Why, I want to know, aren’t these women being heralded as healers? Why are they still vilified because of the nature of their marital status at the time their children are born? It’s not women’s fault that men are less interested in marriage these days than they used to be. (If you have any doubt about that, or think I’m making an assumption, check this out.) Why all this demonizing women and chasing after fathers who clearly don’t give a damn, as in the case of Obama’s father? Why didn’t he write a book about his mother’s great sacrifices and the dreams she gave up because she was the only parent willing to do the work of raising him?

Instead, Obama, like so many others in our culture, paid little attention at all to Stanley Ann’s contributions and sacrifices, or his Grandmother’s for that matter, choosing instead to focus on his obviously lazy grandfather and his absentee father, while the women toiled to support them all. Do you need any more evidence to know exactly how misogynistic Obama, and the culture at large, are? When will we give these women credit for what they have wrought, with their loose morals (according to CW) and willingness to buck tradition? They should be rewarded for their tirelessness day in and day out, for raising little American citizens without physical support or even basic kindness; because their choices are judged by a society whose greatest priority is monetary enrichment, rather than family life. These women aren’t the ones who are out of touch—our leaders, so-called experts, and anyone else who judges them are.

Wooooah! We’re Halfway There

Wooooah! Livin’ on a prayer.

Yeah, I’m a child of the 80s. Heh. But that’s not the reason for that title, or the additional lyric. I’m happy to report that we are halfway there on the Denver Fund Raising Drive! If this keeps up, I may be able to book my flight this weekend! I will, of course, let y’all know as soon as that happens.

I want to offer a BIG thank you to P&L readers who’ve donated, at least one of which donated twice. Thanks so much for helping get me there. You won’t regret it!

UPDATE: You did it! Thank you all so much! You’ve helped me raise the money to get to Denver, and I’ll be buying my plane ticket early next week. I’m so excited and I can’t wait to go. Note how I’ve crossed off transportation on my list. Heh.

I was going to post tonight about something I I’ve been thinking about for a long time, but which has crystallized in mind as a read Dreams From My Father a few months ago. (I still can’t get into Audacity of Hope, but I will.) It has to do with single mothers, and their ironic contribution to helping end racism. Anyway, I’m kinda tired so I think I’ll just make some notes and save the post for in the morning.