brethren priestess online

I am afraid this is still not clear to many people.

I have heard some people here in the Bay Area of California say that they have supported Clinton in the Democratic primary elections because they fear OTHER US Americans are too racist to vote for an African-American (biracial) candidate. Of course, this seems like a convenient excuse to project their own racist misconceptions onto others. Of course, this also seems like a handy way to reinforce classist stereotypes of unenlightened working class white people.

But when will everyone realize that holding onto racist prejudices - as evidenced not only in some televised interviews with West Virginia voters - is simply not acceptable? When will everyone realize that racist views are not just opinions to hold but immoral, embarrassing lies? Voting because of racist biases is not defensible in any way, and we should instead be taking every chance to denounce and end racism, not sigh and take the status quo as our ideal.

The international community recognizes as much. Especially in Europe and Africa, people around the world are looking to the US elections this year to see if we can disprove their notions of how entrenched racism is in the US as we model a way to overcome long-standing ethnic divisions. The UN is even sending an inspector to the US to investigate racism here, exhibiting the foundational belief that racism is something we as a global community are working together to end, not work around.

But what am I to do about all this, you ask? Well, if you live in Oregon or Kentucky, your course of action is clear: go vote for Barack Obama! Yes!

So, right-wingers in the media are trying to peddle fact-free rumors questioning Obama’s patriotism and religious faith, and the Clinton campaign doesn’t seem to mind. Fine.

So then, in Obama’s victory speech in South Carolina, he articulates a vision of a political campaign free from such baseless attacks - a campaign focused on substance. He says, “We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election.”

And how does this get spun? As a ‘jab’ back at Clinton. As if both of them are now just throwing out insults at each other.

Well, excuse me, but there is a big difference between personal insults against an opponent and defending one’s campaign. Those are not equivalent ‘jabs’ back and forth.

There are some two-way jabs that are NOT being made: Bill Clinton has gone around trying to compare Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson, which is about as fair of a comparison as Michelle could make between Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro. All four great political leaders, good people, but Obama’s and Clinton’s campaigns are in a slightly different league than their 1980s’ predecessors. Maybe if we could have Hillary without Bill I’d be more warm to her - as is, I’d rather take the Michelle-Barack ticket any day.

Besides the fact that Obama’s got the best message and record of the Democratic candidates, one of my biggest concerns with the Clinton campaign is that she is just not as electable come November (when it really counts) as Obama is. In one-on-one match-ups, Obama beats any Republican contender; Clinton, on the other hand, would lose to McCain. And even when both Clinton and Obama would beat a contender, Obama beats them by a greater margin – about a 5% stronger lead.  (See www.realclearpolitics.org for more details.)

We have to face it: there is a lot of antipathy toward the Clintons out there, as unjustifiable as it might be. And, if we ignore it, that antipathy could cost the Democrats too much in 2008.

The danger runs deeper than the White House. In the election this November, Democrats have the chance to take back the nation: we’ve got momentum to elect progressives across the country, especially with visionary Obama leading the movement. Just imagine – inspired by Obama’s message of hope and change, progressives and independents flock to the polls, electing not only a Democrat for president but a strong Democratic majority in Congress, creating potential for glorious synergy from Hill to White House, to make the real national change we need.

It’s possible. The Republican Party is scrambling to regroup, to redefine itself, to find some reason to bring conservatives together. The Democrats themselves could hand the Republicans that reason if they select Clinton as their candidate for president. Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson says as much himself in the 28 January issue of Newsweek, in an essay entitled “How My Party Lost Its Way.” He closes his piece chillingly, writing,

“There is, perhaps, one large American political figure who could cause depressed, fractious Republicans to bind their wounds, downplay their divisions, renew their purpose, and join hands in blissful unity at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Republican Convention.
“And that figure is Hillary Clinton.”

The other scenario we have to imagine is putting Clinton on the ticket in November, rallying reactionary conservatives to stream to the polls (while giving progressives little reason to bother), thereby electing not only whatever Republican stays on the top of the heap this spring, but also pushing the Capitol back to a conservative Congressional majority.

Democrats of conscience are now faced with an interesting choice: the candidate who can most realistically win in November is also the candidate whose campaign reflects our most idealistic progressive values. Which leaves me wondering what Clinton has left to offer.

Clinton seems to be running on a single platform these days: ruthlessness. She seems to be saying, “Come on, Democrats! Haven’t you hated watching the Republicans stoop to any level to stay in power and advance their evil cause? Well, wouldn’t you like it if one of your team did the same back at them? We know the Republicans will do anything to get elected, but so will I (and goodie-two-shoes Obama won’t). I’ll sink to any level they’ll sink to, so vote for me!”

And some of this may be correct. Republicans ARE nasty campaigners. They would stoop to most any level to beat an opponent (perhaps even digging into her husband’s illicit history of extra-marital sexual liaisons). We need to be tough and stand our ground in fighting back.

But we also need to retain some substance worth standing ground for. Winning will only matter if the person we elect is the person we want to elect.

And call me an idealist, but I really would like to see a politics that transcends the lowest common denominator, that involves candidates discussing issues instead of each other’s private lives, that inspires young people and old people and new voters to come to the polls and to get involved in civic life outside the voting booth, too. Obama offers that idealistic vision of a better politics, a more moral and more intelligent USA, which is why he is more realistically electable. With Obama, we have nothing to lose but our cynicism.

Or so it seems….

BREAKING: Jesus Christ to return to Earth to endorse Obama
The King of Kings to endorse Obama on Tuesday at a rally in Branson.
Critics play down the value of the endorsement.

Find the full story here.

Obama won Iowa? By a huge margin? Like, with twice as many voters as Huckabee won in his stunning upset? Is it really as amazing as it seems?

What is going on? What is this strange sensation I am having? It feels like…. it feels…. I don’t know. It’s such an unusual sensation to experience the candidate I am supporting, the very BEST CANDIDATE RUNNING, actually WIN the election. I am not used to this feeling. I’ve been hardened by years of good candidates just losing to the establishment candidates…. but not this time. Even among the Republicans, the party’s pick went down to the people’s choice (nutter he may be).

With this rare, once-in-eight-decades chance to have a presidential election with no incumbents running, and thus no one voting simply for the person they think can beat the other person, it’s almost as if DEMOCRACY is working. As if the people and not the party elites are deciding. As if people are voting for who they want, instead of who they dislike less. As if people are voting their hopes instead of their fears. As if the cliches are coming to life, and they are actually kinda cool.

I leave for Africa emboldened with hope. O yeah.

Why Barack Obama? He is dignified. He is clever.  He is an experienced, visionary progressive.  He is savvy: he is able to turn reporters’ questions toward relevant topics, instead of falling into the traps they are planning for him.  (Remember the UFO question?  Obama responded that he didn’t know if there was life on other planets, but there was life on this planet that he was hoping to work for.  That was a dang good answer.)

Why not John Edwards? Edwards is a great guy, but I can’t help remembering the vice presidential debates in 2004, when I was eagerly expecting Edwards to crush Dick Cheney, pointing out his administration’s evils and outsmarting him at every turn. Instead, by the end of the debate, I ended up liking Cheney better. That’s not the feeling I wanted to have from a person I want to see lead national change.

Why not Hillary Clinton? I explore that question over at the Brethren Womaen’s Caucus blog.

Why not Mike Huckabee?  (That was just a joke. Ha.)

Dear Iowa Relatives;

Merry Christmas to you and yours! Little did you know it, but I have been thinking about you especially this time of year! So as not to prolong the suspense, and to admit the shamelessness of this letter as soon as possible, I will get down to business: I think you (and many people like you) should vote for Barack Obama.

Do I dare to tell my family what to do? Well, not exactly. I do venture to add my views to the many clamoring for your attention. My boyfriend and I have been active in the Obama campaign in our area, tabling at the local farmer’s market, throwing Obama parties, and canvassing door-to-door. I got to thinking that before talking to more Californians, I should spend an hour or two contacting my own relatives with those coveted primary votes back in Iowa.

To risk crossing beyond the typical intellectual-orientation of our family’s discussions, I want to say that for me, supporting Obama is not just about the “issues.” I figure you can see his policy statements for yourself online at www.barackobama.com. On the major political issues of our day, Obama pretty much matches up for me as well as anyone. I also don’t like Obama just because he’s from Illinois, either.

I am supporting Obama because I really think he will be the best president out of all the candidates running. He’s not just the best collection of political slogans; he is the best all-around person to lead our country. When I imagine our country under his presidency, I feel proud (perhaps even patriotic?) in a way that I have never had the chance to feel. Obama will bring a careful, eloquent dignity to the office, which is what our country sorely needs both domestically and internationally.

After watching one of the debates a few months ago, I finally realized what made Obama stand out for me. All the other candidates sounded as if they were trying to convince the viewers that they were the most qualified for the job of being president of the United States of America (with varying degrees of success). But Obama sounded as if he was articulating a new vision for what the president of the United States of America should be.

Honestly, I would not despair if Clinton won the nomination, but I would be greatly disappointed at the opportunities for progress that would be lost. Right now, the only person who I can see preventing a Clinton win, on either the right or the left, is Obama. If you love Hillary, I say vote for her. But if you are opposed to her election, or just think we Democrats could find someone more progressive, the best candidate is Obama.

One of the major reasons I’m supporting Obama is that he is the most ‘electable’ Democratic candidate. My greatest concern with the possibility of a Clinton nomination is that her chances of beating the Republican nominee are much slimmer than Obama’s. My boyfriend and I have been tracking the polls at www.realclearpolitics.com, and in match-ups between Democratic and Republican front-runners, it’s alarmingly evident that there are only two ways a Republican could reach the White House: 1) election fraud, which we should come to expect by now; 2) Clinton being the Democratic nominee.

There is a lot of (admittedly extreme) fear of a Clinton administration, baggage which Obama does not carry. Just last night I talked with a Republican Iowa woman about living through the thick of primary season. She didn’t like much about any of the Republican candidates. But then she started shaking her head, saying, “Oh, we don’t want Hillary… no, we don’t want Hillary,” over and over. I broke her from this strange mantra by suggesting that Obama offered the best alternative and she agreed, pledging to support whoever would make sure it wasn’t Clinton in office. For some reason, Obama’s articulate, hopeful message is attractive to Republicans as well as Democrats, even while his policies place him further ‘left’ of Clinton. And the fact that Obama offers appeal that can cross religious and political bounds will serve him well not only in the 2008 election, but while he runs the country as president.

Your votes are crucial because the Iowa caucuses will be the decisive election for the nation. If Obama wins in Iowa, I think he can carry the national nomination. If Clinton or Edwards win in Iowa, I foresee Clinton winning nationally.

So, there you have it. That’s my political evangelization pitch. Being a bit of a politics nerd, I would be happy to hear from you about your experience of this exciting primary election season in Iowa, even if you end up supporting another candidate. In addition to my ulterior motives, I do sincerely wish you a happy and healthy holiday season, with all of my heart.

P.S. Obama On Some Issues of Import for Me:
• From his experience working as a community organizer in Chicago, I believe Obama has the best grasp on the demands facing those living in poverty.
• From his consistent record of opposition to the war in Iraq, I believe Obama would consider the moral implications of waging war, as well as the political ones.
• From his speeches, he seems to understand the nuances that go into choosing how to face an unwanted pregnancy and that the choice goes deeper than bumper sticker simplicity.
• From his willingness to engage with people of faith across the political spectrum, I believe he actually understands and practices the same Christian religion I am committing my life to.
• From his creativity in leading a campaign that does not rely primarily on large corporate donations, I see him breaking a new mold in campaign financing.

I do believe that any of the Democrats would be much, much better than any of the Republicans on these important issues, as well as others such as health care and protecting the Earth’s environment. But I am still holding out to work for the very best in all these issues, within a presidential package that is grounded in the grassroots and reaching for the sky….

Obama is leading the Iowa primary caucus, according to the most recent Newsweek poll.  Hooray for Midwestern values!

On a related matter, Obama gets interviewed by Grist magazine online - and sounds pretty dang good, if you ask me.