Rick Salutin's Feb. 1 column on the Clintons
Sun, 2008-02-03 09:25
#1
Rick Salutin's Feb. 1 column on the Clintons
Sun, 2008-02-03 09:25
#2
While I don't deny that the Clintons aren't exactly a Canadian lefty's cup of tea, I think Salutin's bottom line verdict in this column is both unduly harsh and a little naive. The realities of American politics are such that for an elected representative, including a President, to accomplish anything substantial, it is necessary to make a lot more compromises and do a lot more deal-making than we are used to in Canada. Obama, whom he paints as a squeaky clean alternative to the shopworn Bill and Hillary, is not exactly innocent of such compromises himself. He's also not quite the paragon of authenticity that Salutin raves about. Following is an excerpt from an article that appeared in the February 2 New York Times under the title of "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate":
"When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.
"Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.'
"'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval.
"A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks."
I don't have anything against Obama -- with another decade's worth of experience under his belt, he might make a good president. By the time he has accrued that experience, however, I suspect he will have as many dubious entries on his record as the Clintons.
Sun, 2008-02-03 09:45
#3
I agree with you that compromises sometimes have to be made, and that the longer the years in politics, the more such compromises one is likely to have been involved in.
Because left-wing politics are often ethically-based, there is a tendency to support pure, but unrealistic, policies.
Ralph Nader thus gave us George W. Bush and the Iraq War.
I think Hilary Clinton would be a relatively decent President, but I think Obama would be transformative in the arena of race, which has been a staging ground of reaction in the US for 300 years. To me, the changes which a black President could make will reverberate literally for 100 years.
Sun, 2008-02-03 10:21
#4
Hmm, some of us would say massive electoral fraud gave the world Dubya Bush.
Note that Salutin, no fashion plate himself, takes a swipe at Hillary Clinton's wardrobe choices, comparing them with those of a woman many years younger and many cm taller. Michelle Obama is 44 years old and has the height of a fashion model - Clinton is on the short side, 60 years old and sort of "pear-shaped" (like Kim Campbell) - a hard body type to dress elegantly. More important still, Clinton is standing for office - although Michelle Obama has a professional and political profile in her own right, in this round she is simply supporting her spouse.
Women in power or aiming for it always get critcised for their wardrobe choices, facing much sharper scrutiny than men, who have to look dreadfully sloppy or in bad taste to have the media pick up on it. So Thatcher got it for the iron hairstyle as much as the anti-working-class policies, and Йdith Cresson in France got it for being too tousled and (socialist) casual at first... as much as for some rather tasteless and ill-considered comments.
I don't like the over-hairsprayed, teflon style that is found in much US politics and media (look at newscasters of both sexes!) but Salutin should have known better than to single out a woman pol in this way.
Not that I support her in any way - she is the worst Democratic candidate in terms of the war and oppression of the Palestinians.
Sun, 2008-02-03 10:46
#5
It's been raised in another thread but check out [url=http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html]Robin Morgan[/url]'s dynamite indictment of misogyny on the campaign trail. Sad to see Salutin join the fray.
Sun, 2008-02-03 11:08
#6
Personally, I thought that was shite. Yes, misogyny is pervasive in most cultures, but the idea that feminists should support a woman who refuses to call for an end to the war on Iraq and fully supports the oppression of the Palestinians is dreadful. Why not support frigging Thatcher for that matter?
War and occupation are REALLY not conducive to the advancement of women's rights...
Sun, 2008-02-03 12:05
#7
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=67068] Rick Salutin [/url]
Sun, 2008-02-03 12:17
#8
quote:
I have a friend who focuses on the pant suits. Hillary's are rigid, boxy, teflon-like, stiff, circa 1990, resembling armour, designed to de-gender, and in solid predictable colours. Michelle Obama's, on the other hand, are sexy, nuanced, fluid, body-hugging or skimming, in diverse and textured colour, intelligent, transcending dated versions of what it means to dress as a competent, exciting woman, youthful but not overly so, confident.
Obama, because his wife wears [b]intelligent[/b] pantsuits?????? Somebody, interrupt the wanking daze and put Rick out of his misery, please!
[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sun, 2008-02-03 12:24
#9
quote:
Because left-wing politics are often ethically-based, there is a tendency to support pure, but unrealistic, policies.Ralph Nader thus gave us George W. Bush and the Iraq War.
It's amazing the manner in which self-defeating "truisms" get repeated, without critical examination. What exactly makes either George Bush or Bill Clinton more "realistic" than Ralph Nader or Kunich? Is it that fact that the former accepts the extent to which the political process is controlled corporate power and run in the interest of the economic elite? Are they realistic because they do everything within their power to hide the reality of class politics and pseudo democracy? I'm sorry but if that is realistic than you have a very bizarre (although commonly shared) perception of reality.
Sun, 2008-02-03 12:33
#10
By that standard, the NDP will have "given us" Mr. Harper if it doesn't cut and run.
Sun, 2008-02-03 12:49
#11
I thought the Morgan article was incoherent, also.
For example, she uses the format "Goodbye to..."
Example:
quote:
Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.
Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.
So, is Clinton going to outlaw those things? We can all agree they are nasty, but no policy coming from Clinton will prevent South Park from being South Park.
Fundamentally, I don't get the jump from "For shame!" to "I support Clinton."
Sun, 2008-02-03 12:56
#12
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]It's amazing the manner in which self-defeating "truisms" get repeated, without critical examination. What exactly makes either George Bush or Bill Clinton more "realistic" than Ralph Nader or Kunich? Is it that fact that the former accepts the extent to which the political process is controlled corporate power and run in the interest of the economic elite? Are they realistic because they do everything within their power to hide the reality of class politics and pseudo democracy? I'm sorry but if that is realistic than you have a very bizarre (although commonly shared) perception of reality.[/b]
It also assumes that Nader's votes would have gone to Democrats anyways if Nader didn't run. That's not the case.
Sun, 2008-02-03 13:33
#13
quote:
What exactly makes either George Bush or Bill Clinton more "realistic" than Ralph Nader or Kunich?
Perhaps you miss the point. It was never possible for Ralph Nader to be president, because of "reality". That reality included the fact that vast structures of power in the United States opposed him.
In fact, in terms of what he stood for, Nader was more in touch with reality that Bush, anyway.
So what? Voting for the "purer" position led to the result that Gore lost, and Bush/Cheney won.
The final certified vote in Florida showed a victory by Bush of 500 votes. That margin gave him the Presidency. Meanwhile 97,000 people votes for Nader.
In an ABC poll, 2 out of 3 Nader voters preferred Gore to Bush.
[url=http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/836a9Tracking9.pdf]http://abcnews.go.co...
By choosing a no-compromise position, knowing full well that Nader would not win but voting for him anyway, these electors put Bush over the top.
Sun, 2008-02-03 14:11
#14
Jeff House wrote:
quote:
So, is Clinton going to outlaw those things?
Perhaps you would understand what Morgan means by "Goodbye to all that" if you read her original essay by that name from 1970. Have you? It doesn't mean "This will be behind us." It means, IMO, "We, as a movement, will not stand for such BS anymore. Ever."
The thrust of her essay is reading the current Clinton character assassination and railing against it, putting in the context of how female politicos have always been treated. This is what she is decreeing unacceptable, and it should be for anyone, regardless of whom they support.
Presenting her essay as a mere "Vote Clinton" pitch is misrepresentation.
I don't give a damn if Clinton gets the nomination or if she is elected, really. I do give a damn about how misogyny is kicking into high gear because the Right and the Left seem to gang up on a woman [b]as such[/b], i.e. on any woman (the Salutin piece is transparent to that effect).
[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sun, 2008-02-03 14:35
#15
I did read her essay, but then, I was never very keen on her branch of feminism.
Sun, 2008-02-03 14:55
#16
remind
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
[b]the idea that feminists should support a woman who refuses to call for an end to the war on Iraq and fully supports the oppression of the Palestinians is dreadful. Why not support frigging Thatcher for that matter?War and occupation are REALLY not conducive to the advancement of women's rights...[/b]
Thank you lagatta, exactly.
War and occupational wars are not conducive to the advancement of women's rights in either the country being occupied, or within in the occupier's country.
Sun, 2008-02-03 15:04
#17
I'll never forget women I knew in Somalia (Somali women and Italian NGO women - I don't mean I was ever in Somalia, I met them in Italy) struggling and making a lot of progress against FGM. Eradicating female genital mutilation requires getting women - and many actors in civil society onside - in this case, certainly calling upon Islam's pleas for bodily integrity and health, and emphasis on the need for maternal health, etc.
The renewed state of civil war and what is clumsily called a "failed state" - failed by whom and in whose interests? put an end to these projects and a resumption of FGM rates.
In a more "advanced" country, it is impossible not to observe - and mourn - the very deep regression in terms of women's rights to education, employment and simply bodily integrity in Iraq.
Sun, 2008-02-03 16:19
#18
I think Salutin did describe Obama as vacuous--great with the speeches but lacking substance.
Obama reminds me of Mulroney in 1984. Mulroney had the admiration of many Canadians. Mulroney was a wonderful orator. Then he became a wonderfull-of-it orator. I hope Obama doesn't become full.