Category Archives: Democrats

The real split in American politics

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
LATE ON SUPER Tuesday, I was typing on my blog in one room while Hillary Clinton was addressing her supporters on the TV in another.
    I couldn’t hear every word, but the ones that did cut through were telling:

    Now, we know the Republicans won’t give up the White House without a fight. Well, let me be clear — I won’t let anyone swift boat this country’s future.

    “Republicans.” “Fight.” “Swift boat.” Terms calculated to stir the blood of the Angry Faithful. Then, later: “Together, we’re going to take back America.”
    There was kinder, gentler stuff (if I’m allowed to borrow language from that other side) in the speech, about health care for all and supporting our veterans and helping the powerless. But Barack Obama talks about that stuff, too. Since these primaries are about choosing one or the other, one listens for the differences.
    Between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, the difference lies in those fighting words. It’s a difference set out with great clarity in a recent letter to the editor in this newspaper:

    …(W)hile Sen. Barack Obama is an incredible orator and inspires hope for a post-partisan future, the reality of American politics is partisan. Astute voters realize this and want the candidate who is best suited to fight the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton and her team have gone toe-to-toe with the Republicans and beaten them more often than not.

    The reality of American politics is partisan. And Barack Obama is running on a platform of changing that reality. So, in his own way, is John McCain.
    The Democrats to whom Sen. Clinton appeals don’t despise Sen. Obama (they save that for Republicans), but they don’t see him as having his blood sufficiently up for doing battle with the “enemy.” And they’re right.
    Consider what Sen. Obama said in South Carolina on the night of his primary victory:

    We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents… it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea — even if it’s one you never agreed with. That’s the kind of politics that is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

    In the Republican camp, Sen. McCain has done more than just talk about moving beyond mindless partisanship; he’s risked his political future repeatedly to work with Democrats to achieve goals that put country before party. Last week, he asked the Angry Faithful in his party to “calm down,” and defended his habit of working across the aisle. Self-appointed spokesman for the Angry Faithful Rush Limbaugh responded:

    When did the measure of conservatism… become reaching out to Democrats?… If this were a war, what we’re saying is, “Enemy, come on in, and come be who you are when you get here.”… We view those people as threats to the American way of life, as we’ve always known it…. We view them as people who need to be defeated, not worked with.

    The truly great irony here is that the Angries on the left and the right do work together. In their pas de deux of mutual loathing, they cling to each other so tightly that there’s no room for anyone who’d like to separate them and create a space for rational discourse, or — the gods of left and right forbid — agreement on issues.
    Here’s an example of how the left’s Angries work with their counterparts on the right: The left emotionally demands stem cell research, as Sen. Clinton did in her speech Tuesday. The right cries, No, Never! Ignored are such facts as a) stem cell research is going on, just without federal funding in some areas; b) recent breakthroughs could make embryonic stem cells, the kind being fought over, irrelevant; and c) the man Sen. Clinton seeks to face in the fall, John McCain, favors broadened stem cell research.
    Another example: Last week, the leftists of the Berkeley, Calif., city council dissed the U.S. Marines. Eager warriors on the right (such as our own Rep. Joe Wilson and Sen. Jim DeMint) practically fell over themselves rushing to denounce the Berkeley council. The Marines are a great bogeyman for the loonies in Berkeley; Berkeley is a rare, juicy steak to the right. Call me paranoid, but sometimes I suspect the two sides of working out these stunts between them ahead of time. Everybody comes out on top, except the Marines — and somehow I think the guys who took Iwo Jima will overcome this as well.
    There is indeed a stark divide in this country, but it’s not between the Angry Left and the Angry Right. They just prop each other up. Collectively, they are both the Other Side to me, striving to distract us from realizing the central truth that we’re all in this together.
    On the one hand are the Clinton Democrats and the Republicans who sincerely would rather see Sen. Clinton elected than Sen. McCain. They depend upon each other. They deserve each other.
    The rest of us believe we deserve, for once, a presidential election between candidates who care more about solutions than whether left or right “wins.”
    This is not about affirming some “mushy middle.” You can hardly find two positions farther apart that the McCain and Obama views on Iraq. They have very different ideas on how to fight America’s enemies abroad. But at least neither of them sees the main “enemy” as being their fellow Americans who happen to disagree.

Hillary makes sure we remember what she’s about

While I was typing that last post I was able to sort of half-listen to a Hillary Clinton speech (top of the news hour, you know; don’t want to miss that prime opportunity), and while I couldn’t hear a lot of it, I got the essential message.

There was one sentence in which she got in the verb "fight" and the subject "Republicans," and later she said the usual thing about how she aimed to "take back America," and that’s all she need to say to connect with the sort of Democrats who vote for her rather than Barack Obama. The sort who believe the greatest enemy of all is other Americans with whom they happen to disagree.

For her, the main point in being president seems to be to GET the Republicans, and continue the pointless, nasty bickering that have torn us apart through the Bush-Clinton-Bush years.

A vote for Obama is a vote against all that, which is, as I may have mentioned, why I’m looking forward to a big win for him — to the extent that anyone can have a "big win" tonight. Too bad about the way the Democrats are distributing delegates. No matter who wins in the end, we’ll have to listen to at least a few more speeches of the sort I just half-heard.

I appreciate her mentioning the tornado victims in Tennessee and Arkansas, I will say. It prompted my wife to call kinfolk in Memphis, and things are apparently a mess there and in my old stomping grounds around Jackson. Folks in that part of the country get WAY more than their share of tornados.

You can still buy victory (maybe)

Romney_raise

    Oh, yeah? Well, I’ll see that, and raise you another $7 million…

Those of you who despise John McCain over McCain-Feingold (and sorry, but I don’t think I’m ever going to buy the George Will theorem that Spending=Speech) should be resting easy today. Even though, all across the country, Republicans are accepting and even embracing the Arizonan as their presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney just might prove today that you can still buy your way to victory — even in the biggest market, or bunch of markets, in the country — if you’ve got enough do-re-mi on hand.

Here’s the latest from Zogby, showing McCain winning pretty much everywhere that matters other than California, where Mitt Romney was said to be spending oodles of his own cash.

There is, of course, an alternative explanation I’ve read as to why Romney is leading 40-33 in California is that California Republicans are particularly partisan and ideological. Maybe so. That would explain Reagan, although not Nixon. But why would just the Republicans be that way out on the Left Coast? If it’s in the water, why wouldn’t that rigidity manifest itself among Democrats as well? If it did, Hillary Clinton would be leading there. But she’s not.

A dialogue about Hillary

Hello Mr. Warthen:

    Thank you for your reply. I posted to this effect in response to the blog entry in question, the one along the lines of "Watch Out, Hillary’s in Victim Mode." With all due respect, I feel it was totally unprofessional, snarky and uncalled for. Several others flamed you for it in the comments section, and you replied apologetically, to your credit, to one of them – "redd," I think it was.
    As I said in a second comment, in response to your apology of sorts, I know Mrs. Clinton. I had the pleasure of working on her campaign staff in 1992 on the Clinton-Gore ’92 campaign. She was kind, gracious, courteous and considerate to us several young ‘uns from around the country who had dropped everything to come help her and him. I have seen a side of her you most likely have not. She is not a two-dimensional cartoon villainess. She is a very bright, forceful, intense advocate for the causes in which she believes, and yes, she can be tough as nails. When was the last time that was a fault in a political leader.
    I could go on – but the notion that she is somehow evil and that Obama is pure as the driven snow is a bit much to take. Did you see where he turned his back on her last night, even as she had the good grace to extend a hand in friendship and good grace to Sen. Kennedy, who had just endorsed him? Do you forgive his campaign for fanning the flames of a race war so as to win South Carolina, based on Bill Clinton calling his claims of purity on the Iraq War a "fairy tale"?
    All I am saying is they’re both playing tough, at times dirty political hardball. Neither campaign is peopled with saints. They will, however, either of them, almost certainly do a better job than has Mr. Bush, given the opportunity. Be fair. That’s all. Personal invective of the sort you directed toward her should be beneath someone of your station.
    My two cents.

                            Christopher A. Stratton, Esq.
                            West Hartford, CT

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
To: Christopher Stratton
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: Who’s the real victim?

    Thanks for going to the trouble to further share your thoughts (mind if I post them?).
    I think if you go back before this past week, you won’t find a whole lot of criticism of Sen. Clinton from me. The closest you’ll find will be my column openly worrying about the fact that a Clinton nomination would worsen polarization in the country. And if you can spot anything "snarky" in that — anything other than what I just said, an expression of concern (my distaste for our nation’s increasing partisan divisions is long-established).
    Over the past week, however, I’ve formed an increasingly negative impression. You can probably track it day by day on my blog. It really got started AFTER our editorial board meeting with Obama. I’ve just been more and more alarmed at the idea of her winning the nomination, and more and more glad we chose Obama.
    Maybe the things I’m reacting to were always there; or maybe it’s stepped up in the past week (which seems to be the conventional wisdom). Or maybe before last week, I was just trying so hard not to choose between them before our meetings that I let a lot of stuff slide. I don’t know. I do know that I’ve taken a different tone the past week, and that it reflects what I’ve been thinking…

Hello Again, Mr. Warthen:
    I very much appreciate your kindly following up on my thoughts and comments, and I respect that your general bent appears to be more deliberative and thoughtful than the taunt against Sen. Clinton which was my introduction to you. And yes, of course, please feel free to post my remarks from the prior e-mail below.
    I think the difficulty here is the translation between the more private, extraordinarily decent Hillary I have seen up close on several occasions and the sometimes over-intense Hillary that comes across in public. I think she may not see herself as the world sees her (as is true for so many of us, but for so few of us does it matter so much as it does for her). She has certain natural tendencies which don’t come off super well before a broad audience. She is a very, very intense figure. She is brilliantly intelligent and passionately committed to her causes. And she has the courage and the confidence of her convictions. And because of the courage and confidence, she ordinarily trusts her natural reactions, which at times are, to put it bluntly, to kick fanny and take names – to vanquish her opponent via sheer intelligence and intensity, in the first instance, and by other means at times as well. This is a role that suited her well as the wife of a major political figure, a sort of enforcer for her husband and an intellectual heavyweight who could also simply outsmart and out-argue dadgum near any foe.
    Now, though, those tendencies can come off as over-intense and scary when she is gunning to be the top dog in our country – and in the world for that matter. I think she may be starting to see that, but she is having to feel her way through this minefield in front of the entire world and is not extraordinarily sure-footed about it, and this has somewhat shaken her confidence – she doesn’t know when to trust her instincts and when not to. Add to that that she is up against an opponent who, sheerly as a stump salesman and presence, has the agility and grace of a lead dancer in the New York City Ballet. (The problem I have with Mr. Obama, whom I admire greatly and sincerely, is not with his talent, it’s with his seasoning, his reliability, his depth of experience and understanding. For me, Hillary is money in the bank on policy, a deeply smart, sensible, practical hand. Oddly enough, it is a bit of a conservative, cautious streak in me that is part of why I am supporting her. Personal loyalty is part of the equation for me, but by no means all.)
    Speaking of personal loyalty, Mr. W, please note that it is no coincidence that so many people who work or have worked for Sen. Clinton are fiercely loyal, and it’s not due to some brainwashing regimen, to that I can personally attest. She is extraordinarily gracious, courteous, respectful, considerate and loyal. She is a very fine friend to have and is widely loved, not merely liked, by those who spend more than a little time in contact with her. I have heard it said many times that people who have known them both have a pronounced tendency to favor her over her husband, and – remember – it was he who long ago said, back when they were finishing law school, that she, not he, should be the one who ran someday for president. I think he was deeply wise on many levels in that insight. (I think he was a very fine president on policy, by and large, but I think his personal flaws and weaknesses – and not just the philandering business – greatly undermined what could have been a far more successful presidency than it was.)
    So, catching my breath here for a moment, if she does win election to the presidency, Mr. W, I think Ms. Clinton will diligently and energetically do the rather extensive clean-up job that our federal government needs. She, better than nearly anyone, knows the extent of the damage and the fixes and repairs that need to be put into place across the broad expanse of our federal government. She will pursue these improvements and repairs with great energy, consideration and intelligence. With utmost respect, I do not believe Senator Obama can match her in these regards. She is, in my considered opinion, on balance, the better choice, but that is not to say that others cannot reasonably disagree. (I would, though, so love to see a ticket headed by her with him as the VP and still and yet hold out hope that this can happen – remember Sen. Kerry rather disliked Sen. Edwards and JFK and LBJ were not exactly chums.)
    Lastly, what I have difficulty abiding is numerous supporters of Sen. Obama’s viewing this as a clear cut, obvious choice between good and evil. It is not, and that is foolish. There are too many people whose tempers are running too hot. I hope we can heal this rift in our party, to which both sides have contributed far too much. It is highly counterproductive.
    That’s my bit for tonight.

                            Cheers,

                            Christopher A. Stratton, Esq.
                            West Hartford, CT

Kathleen Sebelius sounds kind of like UnParty material

Obama_sebelius_wart

Until a couple of days ago, I had never heard of Kathleen Sebelius. That may seem odd since I once had charge of the political reporters at the largest newspaper in Kansas. But that was more than 20 years ago, and I long ago shook the dust of that place from my shoes, thank the Lord.

Then on Sunday, I heard this advance feature on NPR about Gov. Sebelius, who was to give the Democratic response to the State of the Union address. I was ready to be displeased in principle, because I’ve always thought those responses to be an offensive institution in practice as well as in theory. The Constitution requires a state of the union message. The "response" is just partisanship for partisanship’s sake; it has existed mainly to have an argument.

But I was pleased at what I heard about this governor who has "spent years learning how to get along with her political opponents," and the piece on the radio seemed to promise something different this time, more along the collaborative lines of the recent economic stimulus deal.

Then came her actual response the next night, which is worth reading. An excerpt:

Good evening. I’m Kathleen Sebelius, governor of the state of Kansas, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. I’m a Democrat, but tonight it really doesn’t matter whether you think of yourself as a Democrat or a Republican or an independent or none of the above…

And so I want to take a slight detour from tradition on this State of the Union night. In this time, normally reserved for a partisan response, I hope to offer something more: An American response. A national call to action on behalf of the struggling families in the heartland and across this great country. A wake-up call to Washington, on behalf of a new American majority, that time is running out on our opportunities to meet our challenges and solve our problems….

Nice beginning. You’ve got this UnPartisan’s attention. Sure, she goes on to give a challenge to the president that is very Democratic in nature, and he as a Republican is bound to take exception to parts of it. And sure, she gets in the usual antiwar licks. But she presents it all in terms that an independent like myself can respect, instead of spewing the usual vile mess we hear out of Washington. I’ve got no problem with Democrats and Republicans setting different sorts of ideas out in competition with one another. I just want them to do it in a way that doesn’t make me want to turn a hose on them.

So — lots of UnParty points for Gov. Sebelius. How could she top that?

Like this: by endorsing Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president who embodies the same kind of "One Country" approach that she tried to invoke in her address Monday night.

The only way she could possibly top herself would be to endorse John McCain as well, he being the natural Republican counterpart of Sen. Obama. Sure, I know that’s asking a bit much, like whipped cream on top of hard candy. But just think: If she did that, we’d have to give her the UnParty nomination for president on the spot!

Sebelius_state_of_the_wart

Obama staffer reports good initial results from Edwards pullout

Just talked to Kevin Griffis, lately the S.C. press guy for the Barack Obama campaign. Although he still has his (803) cell phone, he’s now moved on to Virginia.

When I caught him he was walking around the statehouse there, trying to harvest former Edwards supporters for Obama. He says it’s going quite well; he’s finding a lot of receptiveness among lawmakers, particularly from the more conservative parts of the state where they can’t imagine going for Sen. Clinton.

One thing he says he’s not running into in Virginia — any reluctance on the part of white lawmakers to back his guy. But then, he’s come to accept that as a matter of course, since he didn’t run into it in South Carolina, either.

More good news for Obama: Edwards is getting out

Edwardsquits1

No more splitting the non-Clinton (or anti-Clinton) vote. Or do you have an alternative interpretation? I don’t think there is a significant anyone-but-Obama movement out there the way there is for his opponent, but maybe you’re seeing something I’m not.

Anyway, here’s a link about John Edwards’ decision to accept the inevitable — much too late, but at least he didn’t wait another week.

Put this news together with the unequivocally good news for Obama — the Kennedys and Toni Morrison and Kathleen Sebelius (can Al Gore be far behind?), this adds up to some serious Mo heading into next Tuesday.

Given all the good-news boosts Obama has gotten in the last few days, it makes Sen. Clinton’s trek down to Florida to celebrate her "win" more understandable — how else was she going to get a positive image out there?

P.S. — Edwards has now made his announcement; here’s his speech.

Edwardsquits2

So Hillary can’t make a concession speech in S.C., but she publicly celebrates a meaningless win in Florida?

Hillaryfla

Actually, I just said pretty much all I had to say in the headline.

Saturday night, I initially posted this with the headline saying, "HIllary’s concession speech." Then I realized it was just an e-mailed statement, so I changed the headline to reflect that, expecting the actual speech momentarily. It didn’t come. I saw Edwards give his concession/nonconcession speech (not quitting, although what he’s going on for, I don’t know). But no Hillary.

Did I miss it? I was busy being on live TV and all, so maybe I missed it. Did y’all see it or hear it? I ask because it seemed pretty bizarre for her to be cavorting about on a stage transported by a campaign "victory" that gave her no delegates, in a state which the Democratic candidates had pledged (and I’m using the term "pledge" here loosely) not to campaign in, in a "contest" that was obviously a measure of starting-point name recognition.

If Obama had campaigned there, do you really think she would have run away with it? Seems doubtful, but I’d be interested to hear arguments to the contrary.

Anyway, either I’ve missed something (which is highly probable), or this sequence of events — no concession on Obama’s stunning victory in S.C., celebration of the meaningless win in Florida — would seem to be terra incognita in the Clintons’ exploration of the limits of gracelessness.

Obama’s full victory speech

Obama_victory_speech

Catching up with stuff now I’m back at the office, here is a copy of Barack Obama’s wonderful victory speech from Saturday night. That is, this is a copy of the prepared remarks. You can view the video here:

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama

South Carolina Primary Night

Saturday, January 26th, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina

Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that
our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country’s desire
for something new – who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.

Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in
the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good
people of South Carolina.

After four great contests in every corner of this country,
we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of
Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time.

They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and
white; Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents
from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this
country who’ve never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days,
nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are
tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are
ready to believe again.

But if there’s anything we’ve been reminded of since Iowa,
it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have
fine candidates in the field – fierce competitors, worthy of respect. And as
contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a
contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding
desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.

But there are real differences between the candidates. We
are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re
looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington – a status quo that
extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting
back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and
distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are
health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re
up against.

We are up against the belief that it’s ok for lobbyists to
dominate our government – that they are just part of the system in Washington.
But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and
this election is our chance to say that we’re not going to let them stand in
our way anymore.

We are up against the conventional thinking that says your
ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to
the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and
judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a
common purpose – a higher purpose.

We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause
politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make
college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where
you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it’s one
you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for
our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say
anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly
what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their
leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance
to give the American people a reason to believe again.

And what we’ve seen in these last weeks is that we’re also
up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the
habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s the
politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A
politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the
confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young
people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won’t cross over. The
assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don’t
vote. The assumption that African-Americans can’t support the white candidate;
whites can’t support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can’t
come together.

But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America
we believe in. I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a
white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw
crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white
children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to
Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed
who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud
flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.

That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But
now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in
the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of
Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and
our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and
sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind
of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.

So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy.
That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and
sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose
hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who
can’t afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent
wages because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done.

Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South
Carolina.

The mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover all the needs of
her sick child – she needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and
makes health care available and affordable for every single American.

The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after
school just to make ends meet – she needs us to reform our education system so
that she gets better pay, and more support, and her students get the resources
they need to achieve their dreams.

The Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager
for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut
its doors – he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our
jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who
deserve it. And struggling homeowners. And seniors who should retire with
dignity and respect.

The woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe
since the day her nephew left for Iraq, or the soldier who doesn’t know his
child because he’s on his third or fourth tour of duty – they need us to come
together and put an end to a war that should’ve never been authorized and never
been waged.

The choice in this election is not between regions or
religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it
is not about black versus white.

It’s about the past versus the future.

It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and
distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for
a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared
prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do
this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.

But here’s what I know. I know that when people say we can’t
overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly
woman who sent me a contribution the other day – an envelope that had a money
order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don’t tell us
change isn’t possible.

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and
Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino
brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by
side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change
can’t happen.

When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in
our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom
Thurmond, who’s now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out
onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign.
Don’t tell me we can’t change.

Yes we can change.

Yes we can heal this nation.

Yes we can seize our future.

And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and
take this journey across the country we love with the message we’ve carried
from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert
to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when
we were down – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope;
and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we
can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a
people in three simple words:

Yes. We. Can.

An endorsement indifferent to race, gender

Folks who have read me over the years know that I am somewhat turned off by Identity Politics — all that "MY race," "MY gender" stuff. That’s one reason why I like a guy like Barack Obama, whose appeal transcends skin color. I am even more pleased that his supporters get it, chanting "Race Doesn’t Matter" in the moment of his South Carolina triumph.

So it is that I am further pleased by the way author Toni Morrison has endorsed Barack Obama. A friend passed on to me this bit from an ABCNews story about the letter of support she sent:

Morrison writes of her admiration for Hillary Clinton but says she "cared little for her gender as a source of my admiration".

"Nor do I care very much for your race[s]," Morrison continues to
Obama, "I would not support you if that was all you had to offer or
because it might make me ‘proud.’ "

Even better is this passage quoted by The Associated Press:

"In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare
authenticity, you exhibit somethingObama_toni_morrison_2
that has nothing to do with age,
experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other
candidates," Morrison wrote. "That something is a creative imagination
which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we
associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing
vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle
for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while
ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it.

"Wisdom
is a gift; you can’t train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or
earn it in the workplace — that access can foster the acquisition of
knowledge, but not wisdom," Morrison wrote.

When I read that passage, "if we believe cunning is insight," it occurs to me that her respect for Hillary Clinton must have suffered a setback in recent days, which may have led to this endorsement.

Mind you, this is the writer who dubbed Bill Clinton the "first black president." For HER to embrace the idea of brushing race aside is particularly meaningful. Just as it was so powerful for a victory won with 80 percent of the black vote to be celebrated with "Race Doesn’t Matter."

Black folk are, generally speaking, more mindful that white folks of race — it’s a source of much of the tragic cognitive divide in our country. If Obama’s support had been mostly white, that chant would have meant less. As it was, it was a huge step forward for us all.