So Many White Boys

CNN reports that Black women face a particularly tough choice in this primary, having decide between race (Obama) and gender (Clinton).

Hell, I've got them beat. Do you know how many White boys are running this election? I scarcely know where to begin! How on earth am I supposed to make a decision when my identity group is so fragmented? (But wait: I'm supporting Obama!)

Or maybe, I'm able to make a decision because I'm a rational human being who is able to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates and express a preference. And reading the article, it looks like the Black women discussed are doing the exact same thing.

The decision between Obama and Clinton is a difficult one, no doubt, for people of all races and genders. That's because they're both excellent candidates who would make wonderful presidents. It annoys me that Black women are being treated this cycle as if their deliberations -- unlike mine -- aren't occurring off that very basic premise.

UPDATE: Now CNN has an article up detailing the "angry reaction" its previous article elicited from its readers. Good. Not good enough if they keep running articles like this, but good.

Frankenstein Veto

I'm no fan of the line-item veto, but even I am shocked by the cynicism displayed in this edition of it. You've got to read it to believe it.

Via my friend Eva Lam at Dem Apples (sorry about the Packers, Eva!).

Ethics Case

In what PrawfsBlawgger Paul Horwitz calls "Tomorrow's Legal Ethics Exam, Today," the New York Times reports on a lawyer who revealed a secret about a Virginia death penalty case that resulted in a death sentence being overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct. The lawyer was previously prohibited from revealing the information, as it would have been potentially harmful to his own client, who was a co-defendant in the case.

It's really a fascinating story. And it shows some of the absurdity of a legal system which uses the threat of death to get testimony out of defendants, then acts as if that testimony is in any way reliable.

It's Vegas, Baby!

From The Washington Post's coverage of the Nevada caucuses:

Early entrance polling showed Clinton leading among women, older voters and those who prized experience while Obama held an advantage among black voters and those who valued a need for chance, according to the Associated Press.

Barack Obama: You feeling lucky, punk?

Also, with only 39 precincts left to report (out of nearly 1,800), it looks as if Ron Paul will take second place in Nevada, narrowly edging out John McCain. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee likewise looks like he'll barely beat Fred Thompson for fourth.

Racism ftw!

Go Ron Paul!

Let's recap: Major Ron Paul related news since Michigan? He is, if not himself a racist, tied to a huge network of White Supremacists. Results in the first caucus since Michigan? Ron Paul locked in a dogfight for second place with John McCain.

Anything that causes more chaos in the GOP primary is alright with me.

Go scary racist White dude! Take second in Nevada!

Boxing Blogging: FNF 1/18/08

It was a night of knockouts in Key West, Florida. All four televised bouts ended under the distance, and we also saw the retirement of former IBF Cruiserweight Champion and Friday Night Fights staple Kelvin "Koncrete" Davis.

Also quickly, before we recap the action, Brian Kenny announced in studio that Season Three Contender Champ Sakio Bika will be returning to face former Super Middleweight title challenger Librado Andrade. This is a great fight. Both guys have granite chins, both guys are in The Ring's top ten rankings at 168 lbs. (Andrade at 5th and Bika at 8th), and both guys can fight. Andrade's only loss is to Mikkel Kessler, and Bika's only losses are to consensus Super Middleweight champ Joe Calzaghe, now-titlist Lucien Bute, and an early and since avenged loss to the dangerous Sam Soliman. Though I like Bika, I have to favor Andrade in this fight, but in a battle between two experienced warriors who have never been knocked out, anything is possible.

Randall Bailey (36-6, 33 KOs) TKO5 Anthony Mora (15-2, 10 KOs)

Bailey, in his first fight back after losing a controversial split-decision against Herman Ngoudjo, squared off against six-foot tall Anthony Mora, back after a 22-month layoff following his first loss, a knockout by the fists of Rustam Nugaev. Bailey is an explosive power-puncher, and while he got the expected knockout with a vicious right hand, he spent a bit too much time searching for it and not enough time sticking to the fundamentals. If he boxes against Paulie Malignaggi, who he's been calling out, the way he fought tonight -- wild, looping, and sans the jab -- he'll get picked apart. But then again, as Bailey demonstrated tonight, he's got that great equalizer -- dynamite fists.

As for Mora, from pre-fight chatter there were questions about whether he really wanted to be in the ring tonight, and two straight knockout losses certainly aren't encouraging for a fighter contemplating retirement. If he does keep going, he desperately needs some cream-puff fights to build his confidence back up, because it was not in display tonight.

Ed Paredes (18-2, 11 KOs) TKO5 Cesar Vega (10-13, 2 KOs)

No surprise in the ending here, as Paredes is just on a different level from Vega and throughly out-classed him all evening. Vega was game, active, and throwing punches all evening, but didn't have the skills to really threaten Paredes at any point. Indeed, while in the first round Paredes looked a bit surprised by Vega's aggression, he quickly settled down and took control with patient, effective punching.

Credit to Paredes for doing what he needed to do, but this fight doesn't tell us anything. Paredes has still never really stepped up his competition (including his two losses), and I'm not persuaded as to his ability to hang with the top dogs based on tonights performance.

Eric Fields (11-0, 9 KOs) TKO1 Kelvin Davis (24-8-2, 17 KOs)

Fields, on the other hand, really put on a show in his brief appearance tonight. Yes, Davis had lost three straight coming into tonight, albeit all against good opposition. And yes, Davis had suffered a broken neck and back in a freak training accident, and was probably not at full strength. But you know what? It still takes some serious power to blitz him the way Fields did. And when Fields hurt Davis the way he did, he showed great instincts in finishing the former titleholder off. He sat down on his punches, but more importantly threw them tight and controlled. He wasn't overanxious, flailing for the knockout. It feels odd to talk about patience in the context of a first round knockout, but that's what I saw, and he got the knockout. Fields still needs some more fights before I'd put him in any title talks, but he's got the power, the skills, and the instincts to really run in this division.

Davis, for his part, announced his retirement after this fight. I think it's the right move. He's now lost four straight fights, he said himself he's more worried about getting hurt in the ring than he is worried about beating his opponents, and his body clearly isn't what it was prior to the accident. He's given us some great fights, and I wish him a happy and enjoyable retirement.

Danie Von Staden (6-3, 4 KOs) TKO1 Damian Tinker (3-2, 1 KO)

What are the odds that I'd have seen a 6-3 fighter before on live television? But this is, in fact, the second time I'd watched Von Staden, the first being a decision loss to Alex Brenes, also in Key West, also on a Randall Bailey undercard. Things turned out better for the home-town favorite Von Staden this time, as he landed a solid uppercut to knockout Tinker and delight the fans. It was actually a solid round of action, with both guys hurting each other before Von Staden closed the show.

Neither one of these dudes is going anywhere, but that's okay. Most boxers aren't title challengers. They ply their trade on undercards, do the best they can, and try and entertain the fans. That's perfectly fine, and tonight, it made for a successful end to a solid FNF card.

Friday Round-up: Shabbat Shalom!

I'm taking a friend to Carleton's Shabbat services tonight (she's Jewish, but very non-religious and has always been too intimidated to learn more). So instead of posts, roundup!

Steve Benen: Although the Romney campaign may not like it, it's a good thing when reporters call out candidates on lying.

That being said, and though I'm no fan of "Multiple Choice Mitt", Ezra Klein fairly notes that the media seems to harbor a loathing of him that borders on irrational. Certainly, if they applied the same standards to, say, John McCain, their whole world would implode.

Eric Muller, perhaps the nation's foremost expert on Japanese Internment, is worried that Korematsu is being rehabilitated.

Keith Olbermann made a mistake on air. So he apologized. In today's media environment, that's actually news in of itself.

Speaking of media apologies, Chris Matthews gave at least a quasi-apology to some of his sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton. Feministing's Ann is skeptical but seems willing to put him on probation.

This is nearly two years old, but I only found it now: The new media image of masculinity encourages men to be boys.

The WaPo's Fix Blog has it's latest edition of The Line up. Of the top 10 Senate seats most likely to change parties, nine are GOP held. Ditto in the House.

If you're interested in what legal scholarship has caught my eye, the fourth volume of David's J.L. & Cool Stuff is online at First Movers.

Ethan Leib offers his thoughts on an event focusing on Randall Kennedy's new book, Sellout, "about people (presumably minorities or other non-white-hetero-males) that become enemies of their own people." Kennedy came to Carleton last year to talk about this project, but tragically, it was not quite the positive experience Leib appeared to enjoy.

And finally, Crotchety old lady one, ass-hole zero:

No Secret Service Agent is an Island

I don't have much to comment on the story, summarized by Steve Benen, regarding a man's lawsuit for against the Secret Service for illegally arresting him after he confronted Dick Cheney, then covering it up. But I thought one part was amusing:

The agent who made the arrest, Virgil D. Reichle Jr., said in a deposition that he was left hanging with an untenable arrest because two agents assigned to the vice president had at first agreed with a Denver agent that there had been assault on Mr. Cheney by Mr. Howards, then changed their stories to say that no assault had occurred.
[...]
Mr. McLaughlin said Mr. Reichle, who has since been transferred to Guam, asked him in a call several hours after the encounter to say that there had been an assault to bolster justification for the arrest.

Emphasis added.

Now, I want to stress that there is no reason to think that this is punitive (indeed, the essence of the story is that both sets of Secret Service agents are claiming the others are lying, so it's difficult to know who are the "good guys"). Indeed, I can very much imagine Guam being considered quite a cushy job.

But there something tickling -- if only in a purely literary sense -- about reading a report about a scandal involving this administration where a key player appears to have been summarily banished to a remote island.

Popping Dissertations

How a sociologist became a gang leader for a day. I wish I had time to pick it up, because it sounds absolutely fascinating.

Popping Dissertations

How a sociologist became a gang leader for a day. I wish I had time to pick it up, because it sounds absolutely fascinating.

Quote of the Evening

"[A]nti-Semitism is like alcoholism. You can go for 25 years without a drink, but if things go bad and you find yourself with a vodka in your hand, you can’t get rid of it."

--Iain Pears

The quote is from the International Herald Tribune on August 11th, 2003, but I found it in this Dissent article by Mitchell Cohen: "Anti-Semitism and the Left that Doesn't Learn."

Even if anti-Semitism is in remission in some places in the world, that doesn't mean we've kicked the habit. As we've seen, the age-old prejudice has its own regenerative abilities that allow it to come roaring back after prolonged (supposed) absence.

Black and Latina? Slow Down!

I've made this mistake myself, so I don't absolve myself, but this is a timely and well-needed reminder by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez not to automatically separate Black and Latino. When we ponder uncritically about whether Latinos will vote for a Black President, we forget that many Latinos are Black. Most members of the "African diaspora", as the author puts it, live south of the United States. The largest immigrant group in New York City is the Dominicans, the vast majority of whom are Black. Many things we associate with Latino culture, from Salsa dancing to "La Bamba", have their roots in Afro-Caribbean culture, and prior to that, Africa.

There probably is some tension between non-Black Latinos and non-Latino Blacks. And that's worth exploring. But Latinos and Blacks are not mutually exclusive categories. And insofar as I've forgotten that, I apologize.

H/T: Jill

The Hell?

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), representing a suburban district near the Twin Cities, shows that she isn't the brightest bulb in the ceiling:

I am so proud to be from the state of Minnesota. We’re the workingest [sic] state in the country, and the reason why we are, we have more people that are working longer hours, we have people that are working two jobs.

Yay! I'm so proud to live here right now.

Ba-dum-Ching!

Hillary Clinton plays flight attendant on "Hill Force One". It's actually pretty funny:

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, and welcome aboard the maiden flight of Hill Force One. My name is Hillary and I am so pleased to have most of you on board,” Clinton said over the loud speaker of a chartered 737. “FAA regulations prohibit the use of any cell phones, BlackBerries, or wireless devices that may be used to transmit a negative story about me.”

[...]

“In a few minutes, I am going to switch off the ‘fasten your seat belt sign.’ However, I’ve learned lately that things can get awfully bumpy when you least expect it — so you might want to keep those seatbelts fastened,” she said, surprising the members of national print and broadcast media on board who at first thought a flight attendant was imitating the typically serious presidential candidate.

“And in the event of an unexpected drop in poll numbers, this plane will be diverted to New Hampshire,” Clinton said, referring to her recent primary victory. “If you look out from the right, you will see an America saddled with tax cuts for the wealthiest and a war without end. If you look out from the left, you will see an America with a strong middle class at home and a strong reputation in the world.”

[...]

Before she passed the mike over to the professionals to give safety announcements, she signed off saying, “Once again, thank you for joining us on Hill Force One. We know you have choices when you fly, and so we are grateful that you chose the plane with the most experienced candidate.”

The story ran on the Wall Street Journal's website, so of course the first three comments implied that a flight attendant was the only job she was qualified for, that she was mocking flight attendants, and that she was advocating political censorship with her "blackberry" remark. Some people have no sense of humor....

Not Even if Clinton Were Running!

Stephen Bainbridge gives Mike Huckabee the ultimate insult: casting him onto his "personal list of candidates for whom I would not vote even if the only alternative is Hillary Clinton (in which case I’ll just sit home and complain)." He joins Mitt Romney in this Republican equivalent of hell.

This is particularly interesting because Prof. Bainbridge is at least somewhat of a social conservative. Then again, he's specifically a Catholic social conservative, and we know they're not Huckabee's strong suit.

E-Revolution

Popular outrage over auxilary police beating to death a citizen journalist who was taking pictures of them beating yet other Chinese citizens appears to have motivated the Chinese government to action. The story has raced around Chinese blogs and news sites, and led to at least one official being fired and dozens more under investigation.

This is not the first article I've read along these lines regarding events in China, and it appears that they do at least exert some impact on real-life policy. It seems that the Chinese citizenry is beginning to flex some real muscle in terms of liberalizing their country. It's slow and unstable, and thus far it hasn't put true democracy on the table, but it's real.

Head Scratchers

Interesting digression in class today. We were in small groups taking about whether we, if we were residents of America in the late 18th century, should have voted to ratify the constitution. I pointed out that at least some members of the group didn't have the right to vote at all.

"Yeah," said one, "because I'm a woman, I couldn't vote at all."

A guy responded, "and half of me couldn't vote." The professor raised an eyebrow and asked "are you half woman?"

"No, I'm half Black."

[Pause]

"Though, I guess I'm half woman also."

I never thought of it that way, but he's right, isn't he?

***

In other news of the bizarre, the unnamed law school which admitted me on January 1st, sent me a nice email today, January 16th, informing me that they've received my application and I should expect a decision by April. I'm on the edge of my seat.

Also, neighboring law school of already-admitted U asked to see my fall term grades. This isn't an unreasonable request, except that they already have my fall term grades. I didn't submit my application until my fall term grades were available. If they have any grades at all, said grades include my fall term grades. I sent them a polite-but-puzzled email to that effect, and am waiting for a response.

Flipper

Noting her unique talent for convincing high-profile Republicans to switch to the side of the light, Ezra Klein pitches Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as a good VP candidate for Barack Obama. The change motif, the ability to latch on to disaffected moderate Republicans uncomfortable with their party's extreme lurch to the right (e.g., Kathryn Lopez's remark that John McCain's opposition to waterboarding means he's "not one of us"), her status as a female governor from a state not generally seen as Democratic territory, all would synergize very well with an Obama campaign.

All good points, and perhaps controlling. But I do still worry about the narrative it will inevitably create if Barack Obama picks a female running mate. It doesn't matter that Sebelius is supremely qualified, fits well with Obama's message, and tactically comes from a region of the country that balances Obama's ticket (the plains states won't be competitive even with Sebelius on the ballot, but it's important to have a VP candidate that doesn't hail from a deep blue Democratic metropolis). Inevitably, it will be seen as pandering to the female vote which was scorned by Obama defeating Clinton; an "affirmative action" pick.

But then, the more coverage like that we see, the more satisfying it will be when we beat it.

Obama and Farrakhan

Black political leader Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) once made an interesting remark on Louis Farrakhan. Asked to repudiate some idiotic thing that the Nation of Islam leader said, Rangel responded that the statement in question was "garbage", but at the same time, argued that Black Americans should not "have to carry around their last statement refuting Farrakhan." In other words, the facial assumption should not be that Black leaders must positively disassociate themselves from the clergyman. At the very least, some indication of connection or sympathy to the man should be demonstrated first. Henry Farrell argues that "it’s an implicit double standard, under which black politicians have a higher hurdle to jump before they deserve public trust than white ones," and questions why, say, Hillary Clinton isn't subjected to whispers about her anti-Semitism from the media because she met with Billy Graham.

The topic comes up in reference to a Richard Cohen editorially saying that Obama needs to forcefully condemn his pastor and spiritual adviser, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., for giving an award in his magazine to Rev. Farrakhan. As David Bernstein points out, the praise was not in passing or even limited to the arguably positive elements of Farrakhan's agenda; rather, it was quite comprehensive and universal. And Dr. Wright, for his part, is no minor player in Obama's life -- indeed, Obama himself has continually stressed his pastor's role in his personal faith journey and his religious and political commitments.

So while there might be a little Kevin Bacon going on here, I don't think Obama necessarily deserves a pass. For one, while some folks are trying to stretch the chain of connection Obama (as Steve Benen put it, "Obama has a personal 'obligation to speak out' ... because his church’s pastor’s daughter’s magazine said something complementary about Farrakhan."), the link really isn't all that attenuated: Wright himself directly complimented Farrakhan in the following words:

“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens,” says the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, likening the Minister’s influence to the E. F. Hutton commercials of old. “Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen…His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.

“Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience,” continues Wright. “His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics. His love for Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere
about his faith and his purpose.”

And again, Wright is not just Obama's pastor, he's a key member of Obama's circle.

Obama's campaign has already clarified that he disagrees with Wright on this issue. That's good to know, although not particularly surprising -- nobody seriously thought Obama shared Wright's views on Farrakhan. But is that sufficient? I don't know. On the one hand, I'd like a more forceful repudiation, and I don't find the Kevin Bacon defense persuasive here. Here's Obama's statement on the matter:

I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.

The reason I don't quite find this enough is twofold; first, because "not a decision with which I agree" is very tame language, and second, because Trumpet Magazine and Rev. Wright's praise for Farrakhan seemed to explicitly go directly beyond his work on ex-offenders.

On the other hand, it's hard for me to put a finger on what I want beyond the secure knowledge that Obama doesn't believe Farrakhan is a good dude and won't act on the belief that he is, and I already have that. And it's not like media critics are falling over themselves to condemn GOP candidates (outside cranks like Ron Paul), or even other Democratic candidates, for their connections to anti-Semitic religious extremists. Farrell's point about the double-standard remains well taken, and I'm not sure what the practical implications of that should be. And as my TMV co-blogger T-Steel aptly reminds us, anyone who thinks that radical Black nationalism or the Nation of Islam will have any meaningful influence in a hypothetical Obama administration is delusional. So isn't this just a tempest in a teacup?

UPDATE: Ed is more defensive of Obama than I am? Man the barricades, I smell apocalypse.

Appalachia Ho!

Whenever I talk about racism as a structural phenomenon that disadvantages Black people regardless of class, Appalachia is brought up. Presumably, the point is that White people can struggle too. I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove -- that A --> X doesn't mean that B -/-> X. There are poor White people in Appalachia. They face many disadvantages, most of which would be defended to the death as capitalism-in-motion if the point wasn't to discredit Black people. And some of those same Appalachians have lived their lives and can still conceptualize that, their own disadvantage notwithstanding, racism still operates in America in ways wholly distinct from their own problems.

Appalachia also is trotted out because (to risk the ire of Ambrose Bierce), it is the exception that proves the rule. I am reminded of an SNL skit summarized by Tim Wise:

The lack of symmetry between a word like honky and a slur such as “nigger” was made apparent in an old Saturday Night Live skit, with Chevy Chase and guest, Richard Pryor.

In the skit, Chase and Pryor face one another and trade off racial epithets during a segment of Weekend Update. Chase calls Pryor a “porch monkey.” Pryor responds with “honky.” Chase ups the ante with “jungle bunny.” Pryor, unable to counter with a more vicious slur against whites, responds with “honky, honky.” Chase then trumps all previous slurs with “nigger,” to which Pryor responds: “dead honky.”

The line elicits laughs all around, but also makes clear, at least implicitly that when it comes to racial antilocution, people of color are limited in the repertoire of slurs they can use against whites, and even the ones of which they can avail themselves sound more comic than hateful. The impact of hearing the antiblack slurs in the skit was of a magnitude unparalleled by hearing Pryor say “honky” over and over again.

I could list off all manner of places and locales where Black Americans struggle under the weight of disadvantage. Indeed, I could list any place in America where Black people live (which, it bears mentioning, includes Appalachia), but to be more specific, Anacostia, DC and South Bronx, NY (Urban), Prince George's County, MD (Suburban), and Wilkinson County, MS (Rural). If I mention disadvantage in PG County, it's met with the cry of "Appalachia!" Anacostia? Appalachia! Rural Mississippi? Appalachia! It's a one trick pony, and one that presumes that social scientists are morons to boot. Do these people really think that researchers simply forget the existence of Appalachia when documenting continued racial disparity and discrimination? Indeed, in some ways Appalachia proves the opposite point -- I've seen no indication that the 10% or so Black population in Appalachia is any better off than their White peers. Even in the paradigmatic case of White deprivation, odds are Blacks have them beat on their own turf. Compare that to, say, how Blacks and Whites match-up in New York City, or the DC metro area, or the Mississippi delta.

Wise continues to note that, even when comparing Appalachia to Black people who are nominally "better off", poor Whites still hold advantages:

Poor whites are rarely typified as pathological, dangerous, lazy or shiftless the way poor blacks are, for example. Nor are they demonized the way poor Latino/a immigrants tend to be.

When politicians want to scapegoat welfare recipients they don’t pick Bubba and Crystal from some Appalachian trailer park; they choose Shawonda Jefferson from the Robert Taylor Homes, with her seven children.

And according to reports from a number of states, ever since so-called welfare reform, white recipients have been treated far better by caseworkers, are less likely to be bumped off the rolls for presumed failure to comply with new regulations, and have been given far more assistance at finding new jobs than their black or brown counterparts.

Poor whites are more likely to have a job, tend to earn more than poor people of color, and are even more likely to own their own home. Indeed, whites with incomes under $13,000 annually are more likely to own their own home than blacks with incomes that are three times higher due to having inherited property.

None of this is to say that poor whites aren’t being screwed eight ways to Sunday by an economic system that relies on their immiseration: they are. But they nonetheless retain a certain “one-up” on equally poor or even somewhat better off people of color thanks to racism.

This isn't to say that race always trumps class. No amount of money can buy off racism, but it can mitigate its effects to the point that they're not as severe a burden as extreme economic deprivation. But race always is in play, no matter how rich or poor you are, and White people are its beneficiaries, no matter how poor they are. Ronald Reagan's "Welfare Queen" was explicit racial imagery. It didn't attack poor people, it attacked poor Black people. Poor Whites (in Appalachia) simply never were attached with the same scorn and opprobrium that their Black classmates took on. The drug war doesn't target meth abuse among White Appalachians. It buries Black crack users in Mott Haven. Appalachians do get screwed in America. But they don't get screwed on account of race. Insofar as race plays into their treatment and social perception, they're advantaged. Which is why shouting "Appalachia!" doesn't cut it as a response to race-based disparity in America today.

Off-the-Cuff Clinton

Hillary Clinton is viewed with wariness by many Democratic voters, because, to quote Robert Farley, "Hillary's reputation is farther left than her policies." But at the same time, I think her instincts are more progressive than her tightly controlled political persona indicates. Consider this off the cuff remark at a Nevada rally that's ignited a firestorm on the right:

Answering a shout from a man in the crowd who said, "I'm married to an illegal woman," Clinton shot back, "No woman is illegal," grinning as the packed Mexican restaurant at which she was speaking exploded in cheers.

That comment, reported in Friday's Review-Journal, caught the attention of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and the Drudge Report and led to nearly 1,000 angry comments on the newspaper's Web site.

To put the remark into context, Clinton did add, after a pause, "... and no man, either." She then explained her position on immigration.

That's not the type of statement you expect to hear from Clinton. It's not just that it's unabashedly progressive. It's also aggressive -- her words were guaranteed to prick the skin of any conservative within earshot. Clinton certainly is no stranger to raging conservative, but rarely does she directly provoke the controversy. I doubt she was planning on doing so here -- but she made an instinctive response, and it was more combative and more liberal than we've come to expect from her.

Is it a good political move? I have no idea. But I like the instincts it shows.

"Catch this guy on the right day, and he's Che Freakin' Guevera"

Why Michigan Democrats should vote Mitt Romney:

Star Wars Guide to the Candidates

Funny...and surprisingly accurate.

Via Balloon Juice

The "First" Black President

BlackProf contributor and UMD Law Professor Sherrilyn Ifill has a great post up on the nation's "first Black President", Bill Clinton, and his work derailing the campaign of the man who might become the actual First Black President, Barack Obama.

But what I actually liked most was her description of why Clinton was given the title (ironically, but still somewhat substantively) by Toni Morrison in the first place:

When Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton “the first black president,” I knew what she meant. He had a kind of swagger, a kind of personal charisma and (in comparison to the other candidates on the ticket in 1992) a kind of “hip-ness” that smacked of negritude. Hanging out with Vernon Jordan, having power breakfasts with Ron Brown, clappin’ on beat with the choirs at black churches, Bill seemed like he could really hang. Even more telling, white conservatives hated him like they’d hate a black president. They disrespected him like they would a black president, virtually going through the man’s garbage looking for dirt. And they were obsessed by and jealous of Bill’s sexuality, just as white men have historically been obsessed by the sexuality and prowess of black men.

The last part is telling. Another Blackprof contributor, GW Law Professor Paul Butler, once wrote an article based along similar themes. Starr is to Clinton as Regular Prosecutors are to Blacks [40 B.C. L. Rev. 705 (1999)] tried to analogize the experience many Black people have with our legal system to President Clinton's situation. It's not that Black people don't commit crimes. It's that they feel like the system is out to get them in ways that stretch way beyond the principles of justice, accountability, culpability, or fairness. They sympathize with Bill Clinton because he seems to, in some small way, engender that same disregard for basic dignity and fairness that they too face as a matter of course.

Yoo Know It's True

With regards to the aforementioned suit by Jose Padilla and his mother against former White House attorney John Yoo, Balkinization's David Luban has a fantastic rundown of the legal issues in question.

Nickel version: it's complex, but the WSJ was wrong (and at least a little disingenuous) to simply dismiss the legal merits of Padilla's case out of hand.

Word of the Day

"Chrestomathy", from the Dallas Morning News' description of Ron Paul's "bigot-grams" as "a crackpot chrestomathy of extreme right-wing conspiracy raving." Chrestomathy, as James Kirchik looked up, is defined as "a collection of selected literary passages, often by one author and esp. from a foreign language."

Thank me when you take your GREs or SATs.

Positive Polling Out of Palestine

I've long thought that -- on the Palestinian side anyway -- the biggest barrier to progress in the peace process was the gap between the Palestinian people and their leadership. The Palestinians themselves probably were in favor of a reasonable settlement with the Israelis. But unfortunately, the political arena was firmly in control of a militant minority that, alas, controlled the guns.

Now, via David T at Harry's Place, some recent polling on the Palestinians' views on their situation and the conflict with Israel backs this hypothesis up:

Support or opposition to a peace settlement with Israel

Support 72%
Oppose 25.5%

Support or opposition to the Palestinian participation in the peace conference that will be held at the end of the month.

Support 71%
Oppose 26.5%

Should Hamas maintain its position on the elimination of the state of Israel?

Hamas should maintain its position on Israel 31%
Hamas should change its position regarding Israel 69%


Other interesting results here.

Main issue that makes you feel concerned

The economic hardship 31%
The absence of security 25%
The internal power struggle 29%
The Israeli occupation in general 6%
Family problems 3%

The security situation in the Gaza Strip now is better than before Hamas took over, worse, or it did not change?

Better 14%
Worse 79%
The Same 6%

Trust in Abu Mazen versus trust in Ismael Hanieh

Abu Mazen 78%
Ismael Hanieh 22%

Factional trust

Fatah 46%
Hamas 13%
Others 9%
None 32%

(Hamas trust was 41% in January 2006. Fatah v Hamas trust is 46% v 16% in the Gaza strip)

Support or opposition to early PLC elections

Support: 77%
Oppose: 23%

Voting preference if early PLC elections are held next week

Fateh 69%
Hamas 15%
Others 16%

Attitude about the nature of the state, refugees, and Jerusalem

Two states for two people 53%
A one bi-national state in historic Palestine 15%
A Palestinian state on all historic Palestine 32%

Return to their original place of residence 61%
Return back to the new Palestinian state 24%
Compensation 15%

Jerusalem as an international capital 19%
East Jerusalem for Palestine and West for Israel 29%
A unfiied capital for both states 14%
A capital only for Palestine 38%

As David puts it, "rejectionism rejected". Fantastic news.

Yay Competence!

Phone companies drop FBI wiretaps due to unpaid bills. That's our national security apparatus at work!

And let's also hear it for the phone companies: they'll work with the federal government on spying programs of dubious legality without batting an eyelash, but deprive them of their thirty pieces of silver, and they're out the door faster than you can say "retroactive immunity."

Note: I have no idea whether the wiretaps at issue here overlap with the one's which are the subject of controversy. It's entirely possible all the wiretaps in question are perfectly warranted and legal.

Boxing Blogging: FNF 1/11/08

Last night's FNF was described, rather accurately, as a "semi-finals" for Edison Miranda and Jean Pascal. If both won their fights, they'd set up an intriguing bout between the two on ESPN2 in June.

Kasim Howard (5-0, 4 KOs) TKO2 Ron LaForge (1-1, 1 KO)

This was the last bout of the evening, but I'm putting it first because it was the swing bout. Howard and LaForge had lots in common as fighters. Both were undefeated heavyweights with a good knockout percentage in the very early stages of their careers. Wait, that's all they had in common. Howard showed skill and technique. LaForge kind of lumbered at his opponent. Howard was ripped and in shape. LaForge, well, he carried 220 pounds on a 5'9 frame. I'm a lean 5'8, but he's got almost 80 pounds on me with that extra inch. And finally, Howard has been busy since turning pro, while LaForge took 9 months off since his first fight.

It went about as could be suspected. Howard knocked down LaForge twice in the second round in route to an easy knockout victory. He didn't look perfect -- there are still plenty of technical issues the young fighter could improve upon (falling in from too far out would be a big one). But he's got skill, appears to have conditioning and power, and he's doing what a talented young heavyweight prospect should be doing -- knocking fighters out.

Jean Pascal (21-0, 14 KOs) UD10 Omar Pittman (15-4-1, 8 KOs)

I've see Pascal fight once before, and he looked pretty good stopping late replacement Christian Cruz. He's hyper-fast, with tremendous athletic gifts. But despite the lop-sided (and deserved) decision victory, this wasn't his best fight, in against a boxer he really should have out-classed.

Pittman, a Philly based fighter, came out aggressively in the first round and scored what arguably could have been a knockdown, though the ref ruled it a slip (the punch cuffed Pascal more than it landed cleanly). After that, though, Pascal dominated through round six, knocking Pittman down in round two with a beautifully timed hook. Pittman wasn't throwing much, and as Teddy Atlas observed, his spirit looked throughly broken.

But I have to say, even at this stage in the fight, I was raising an eyebrow at Pascal. Sure, I was impressed with his speed. But he seemed technically very unsound. Jumping in without defense, going straight back with his hands down. There were a great many moments where I thought, "If Pascal was fighting someone better than Omar Pittman, he could be in serious trouble right now."

And then, in the seventh round, just after Teddy said that Pascal needed to buckle down and get Pittman out of there if he really wanted to make the "statement" he said he was going to on national TV, Pittman landed a massive left hook out of nowhere that sent Pascal staggering. Honestly, Pittman looked as surprised as anyone, but it gave him a much needed boost of confidence, and for the rest of the round through the 8th he was chasing a wobbly Pascal around the ring. By the 9th, Pascal had steadied himself, and he clearly won the 10th to take a comfortable decision.

But again, despite the win, this did not look good for Pascal. Aside from the fact that he should have knocked Pittman out, he showed a mess of defensive failings, and thus took a scare from a fighter he should have dominated. If the shot Pittman landed came from the right hand of Edison Miranda, he'd have been out cold. I'm still looking forward to Miranda/Pascal, but only because I want to see Miranda blast him out.

As for Pittman, this will probably be the last time we see him, as he was definitely just an opponent for Pascal. The North Philly native, who described his upbringing as a struggle just to wake up in the morning and said he had already come further in boxing than he ever dreamed possible, is no world beater. He's not very skilled, and while he's quite game, he also gets discouraged easily. In fact, there were several points in the bout where he looked so miserable I seriously wondered if he was suffering from depression. Anyway, I wish him all the best, and hopefully he will continue to make a nice run in the B/C level circuit.

Edison Miranda (30-2, 26 KOs) KO3 David Banks (15-4-1, 2 KOs)

Poor David Banks. I had a couple of observations after watching his last fight. The first was that he's a difficult fighter to get a handle on. He can be seen as a slick, skilled counter-puncher. But he also can be seen as a dull fighter with no power or inside ability who, too often for comfort, doesn't seem interested in being in the ring. The second was that he's had what must be a really frustrating career. His last five prior to this fight tell the story. After really getting on the map with two straight wins over prospect Elvin Ayala (who would later draw with Sergio Mora), he then lost a decision to Peter Manfredo on Manfredo's home turf in which Banks didn't look half bad. He followed that up with a disputed split-decision loss to Paul Smith in the opening round of The Contender, season three. Finally, he righted ship with a majority decision victory over Donnie McCrary -- someone he had to beat if he was going to continue his career. Even that fight, though, I thought he deserved a UD.

Anyway, now Banks is being trained by Buddy McGirt. And I'll give him credit, he definitely at least looked interested in being in the ring for the first two rounds. But honestly -- what Banks needs now is a few wins to build up his confidence and let McGirt's tutelage sink in. He did not need to be matched with the human wrecking ball that is Edison Miranda. [UPDATE: Speaking of bad luck, if I recall correctly, Banks was originally supposed to face Pascal, not Miranda. Am I the only one who wonders if Banks might have been able to beat Pascal last night?]

After a slow start, Miranda, who was fighting for only the second time at Super Middleweight, started to pick up the pace in the third round. And it was in that round that he landed a massive right hand that literally put Banks through the ropes. The image of him sprawled on his back, balanced limply on the bottom two ropes, was just amazing. And I'm further amazed that Banks even tried to get up, though he didn't come close to beating the count.

Miranda's only losses are to Arthur Abraham and Kelly Pavlik, hardly shabby (Banks', for that matter, are to Miranda, Manfredo, Smith, and Eromosele Albert -- not nobodies either). He continues to show that his power is no fluke, and his form continues to get better. Based on what we saw tonight, he'd eat Pascal alive. And boy, wouldn't that be fun to watch.

Sanford on Obama

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R) has penned an excellent editorial in The State (SC's largest newspaper) on the meaning and significance of the Obama campaign to his state. He doesn't agree with Obama on the issues, and won't be voting for him in November. But, he writes, "it's worth pausing to take notice of something important that the Obama candidacy means for our corner of America."

South Carolinians are rightly proud of our state’s rich heritage and history, dating from the earliest Colonial times and our ancestors’ heroic efforts in the Revolutionary War right up to the present day. I say this because we’re a state that loves history, and one of the nicest parts of my job lies in constantly being exposed to the extraordinary achievements of South Carolinians past and present. In the Obama candidacy, there is a potentially history-making quality that we should reflect on. It is one that is especially relevant on the sensitive topic of race — because South Carolina and the South as a whole bear a heavier historical burden than the rest of our country on that front.

As governor, I try to keep that historical burden in mind, because being sensitive to race has both policy and symbolic implications. I strongly believe that policies such as school choice and reforms to allow Medicaid recipients additional health care options will have a disproportionately positive impact on African-Americans in our state. Others disagree, favoring a larger role for government than the private sector, and those legitimate policy disagreements will always be with us in the political arena.

On the symbolic front: Having a more diversified Cabinet, issuing the first formal apology for the Orangeburg Massacre and traveling across the state line to Georgia to address the South Carolina NAACP convention have all represented small steps aimed at building bridges across waters that have divided us for too long as South Carolinians. In short, just like hundreds before me and scores of others trying in their own ways, I try to build bridges where I can — but I write because it all pales in comparison to the change that may be before us.

This is excellent material. It is surprisingly reflective, missing the reflexive defensiveness (verging into outright hostility) that one often hears from conservatives (southern and otherwise) talking about race, and forthright about the "heavier historical burden" issues of race cast upon South Carolina and the American South.

Nobody is saying that Gov. Sanford should vote for Obama. And I'm not saying that I think his policies, ultimately, are one's which benefit either African-Americans or the nation as a whole. Rather, what is promising about this editorial is that it at least conceptualizes itself in dialogue with a segment of the community that often is de facto excluded from democratic discourse. Insofar as Governor Sanford sees how his administration -- in both it's substantive and symbolic dimensions -- acts upon Black citizens as a relevant consideration and an important concern, that's a boon in of itself.

So kudos, Governor Sanford. That was a beautiful editorial.

H/T: CNN's Political Ticker

Lurking Mode, Deactivated

It's National Delurking Week. I don't know if my blog has any actual lurkers. But if you're out there, show yourself to the light!

Flurry of Endorsements for Obama

Political observers were as stunned as everyone else by Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire, and are struggling the re-establish the frame for the race. Many people thought that Clinton would get major momentum out of New Hampshire, and it certainly didn't hurt her. She narrowly edged out Obama in Q4 fundraising, got a bevy of positive media coverage (ironically enough, most of which related to voter backlash against the media's prior sexist coverage), and is looking to reestablish her status as the "inevitable" candidate. Iowa is now just a blip.

But Obama is showing himself to be surprisingly resilient, pulling in a flurry of new endorsements. John Kerry was the big name (indeed, there are few Democrats in all the country who have a higher profile than the 2004 nominee). But Obama also grabbed three other intriguing endorsements yesterday: Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), Rep. George Miller (D-CA), and 2006 Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont. Johnson is important because he has a vulnerable Senate seat in 2008, and his endorsement shows confidence that Obama's coattails will be a boost for Dems in tough election fights down-ticket. Miller, for his part, is a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who herself has pledged to stay neutral in the race for the White House. Finally, Lamont doesn't have the political pull of Miller or Johnson, but he is a progressive hero for taking on sworn enemy Sen. Joe Lieberman, and could help solidify Obama's credentials with the base, which still reacts warily to Obama's conciliatory, independent-appealing rhetoric.

Today, Obama built on that momentum, snaring the endorsement of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (someone I've mentioned as an interesting VP candidate). Napolitano helps Obama both as a governor of mountain west state, a state bordering Nevada, and by cracking Hillary's hold over high profile female politicians. And finally, powerful Black South Carolina Democrat Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) has announced that he is considering ending his own stated neutrality in the primary process in reaction to comments by Hillary Clinton that seemed to minimized the importance and role of civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King. Obama would be the likely subjet of Clyburn's support.

Folks have had questions about whether Obama possesses the raw political talent to hang with a seasoned player like Clinton. But so far, he's ran a rather impressive campaign, and this string of endorsements has really taken the bloom off Clinton's New Hampshire boom.

Strange but True Jews

The story of the only known Jewish Indian chief.

Via Professor Muller.

You Have To Do Better Than That

Eric Yoffe, a leading Reform Rabbi, has been working hard at developing bonds and bridges between America's Islamic and Jewish community. A noble goal, to be sure. But in the Jewish Week, a group of Islamic leaders have objected to his choice of a partner: the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

Unfortunately, it is difficult from their editorial to grasp why I, as a standard issue liberal Jew, should find the ISNA problematic. It vaguely alleges that the ISNA has "served as a front group for Wahhabism" and other extremist Muslim ideologies, but doesn't say what it means by that. And when pressed for an example of the ISNA's radicalism, it gives us this:

Ingrid Mattson, president of ISNA, revealed the style of radical rhetoric with which the organization is saturated when, in addressing the URJ’s recent convention, she declared that in the current U.S. presidential primaries, “we see candidates being asked to prove that they comply with an ever narrower definition of what it means to be a Christian — forget about being a Muslim or a Jew.”

This is hardly spine-tingling material. Indeed, I might agree with it myself. And even if I disagreed, it hardly strikes me as beyond the pale of respectable discourse. But to the authors of this editorial, it is "an inexcusably irresponsible, inflammatory charge." Seriously? I'm supposed to buy that?

Elsewhere, it misreads Rabbi Yoffe's statement that "Islamic extremists constitute a profound threat. For some, this is a reason to flee from dialogue, but in fact the opposite is true," as promoting dialogue with the extremists, when he obviously is arguing that the presence of Islamic extremism makes dialogue with the rest of the Islamic community more urgent, not less. I could give other examples too; but overall, the styling of the editorial was persistently in such bad faith that it was anti-persuasive -- after reading their article, I came away further from their stated position than when I started.

The editorial was signed by nine people, affiliated with the American Muslim Congress, the Aafaq Foundation, the Center for Islamic Pluralism, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and the International Quranic Center. I know nothing of any of those groups (nor do I know anything about the ISNA). It's entirely possible that the ISNA really is a radical group camouflaged as moderate. It's also possible that this is a power-play by groups trying to smear and discredit a less accommodationist rival. I have no way of evaluating that without doing more research than I care to. Suffice to say that, if the former is in fact the case, these nine persons do serious harm to an important cause when they argue with such reckless disregard for fairness, clarity, or truth.

Torture is Pretty Terrifying

The Wall Street Journal, on several Yale Law grad attorneys bringing a suit on behalf of Jose Padilla against former Bush administration official John Yoo, seeking to hold him liable for authoring the torture memos that led to Padilla's brutal and inhumane detention for four years:

Perhaps if Mr. Yoo had decided to pursue a life of terrorism, he too could be represented by his alma mater.

At the risk of jettisoning my moderate credentials once and for all, some might question how promulgating policies of torture is distinct at all from "a life of terrorism."

Just because you're on our side, doesn't make it right.

NOTE: I make no claims as to the proper resolution of this case, or Yoo's relative culpability in creating America's torture regime. I'm merely observing that if he is culpable, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be considered a form of "terrorism."

Illegal Persons

The Washington Post today has an article on the term "illegal" to describe undocumented immigrants. Opponents of undocumented immigrants use illegal because, in their words, "[T]hey are breaking the law, and I don't consider it akin to a traffic violation. I would consider it breaking and entering. . . . It is a crime to enter this country illegally, and everything else they do is a furtherance of that crime."

The immigrants themselves, though, have a flurry of responses to this. Primarily, they say that the law at issue here is fundamentally unjust -- it keeps parents away from children, and dooms millions to a life of subsistence living and grinding poverty. They also claim it's stigmatizing -- it wasn't in the article, but I've heard the argument that we don't use the term "illegal" to apply to any other crime. When I jaywalk, am I an "illegal walker"? Was Ken Lay an "illegal CEO"?

But actually that debate, interesting as it is, is not what motivates this post. Rather, I wanted to highlight how one opponent of undocumented immigration characterized his support of a harsh crackdown bill in Prince Williams County, Virginia:

"There are places in Woodbridge where you can go and not hear a single word of English being spoken, and that's very troubling to me, because it shows a lack of integration in the process. . . . Sometimes it's difficult even to be understood by the store clerks."

Walker said he thinks immigrants' lack of assimilation might be linked to their residency status.

"Let's face it. It's not, by and large, doctors and lawyers who are sneaking across the border," he said. "I think when people are sneaking across the border, it seems they are more prone to stay in their own enclaves and in houses with multiple families and any number of people and to create a Latino subculture."

Walker said he can't know for sure how many immigrants who don't speak English are in the country illegally.

"They could have every right to be here," he said, adding that his support for the supervisors' resolution had no basis in ethnic or racial prejudice.

Let's review. Mr. Walker supports this resolution because, a) many immigrants he sees don't speak English, or don't speak it as well as he'd like, b) immigrants aren't assimilating quickly enough, c) immigrants are from the wrong social class, d) their forming "enclaves" with "multiple families" and thus creating "a Latino subculture" and e) he has no idea the degree to which any of these "harms" correlate to legal or illegal status.

Then he tells us his support has "no basis in ethnic or racial prejudice".

That entire line of reasoning was a prolonged flurry fearful of, to quote him directly, the creation of a "Latino subculture". That's the essence of ethnic prejudice! The term dissolves into nothingness if this isn't included. Indeed, this man can't even resort to the usual dodge about how he's not demanding Latinos act "White", he just wants them to adopt universal values of hard work. These men and women hold down jobs. They work long hours. They build businesses. They contribute to the economy. So long as they do that, I couldn't care less how they decorate their home or what foods they eat or what friends the associate or what language they speak to their pals.

Even hardened bigots often do not object to the presence of a few token minorities in their midst. What they rebel against is the assertion of any independent identity against that of the dominant group. Charles Lindburgh, a notorious anti-Semite, once helped bring over an entire ship full of Jewish refugees from Germany. Writing in his diary, he stated that "A few Jews add strength and character to a country, but too many create chaos." That's anti-Semitism. The litmus test for prejudice isn't that you're willing to concede that a few minorities can enjoy America's bounty so long as they keep quiet and don't remind anybody that they have their own culture. If you're willing to allow Jews in America only insofar as we're willing to stay invisible and out of your way, you're an anti-Semite, plain and simple. If you're willing to allow Latinos in America only if they act White -- even if they hold a job, even if they employ workers, even if they want nothing more than to live the American dream -- you're a racist, equally simple.

The Gender Vote

My good friend Esq picks up positively Gloria Steinem's much discussed column on how gender should play into our decision to vote for Hillary Clinton. Both are in favor of letting Cliton's gender act as a fairly strong argument in her favor as Presidency, and both specifically pit this against a vote cast for Obama, which Steinem implies is the less "radical" choice. Esq writes:

The most common thing I've heard about Clinton is "I like her, but want to vote for the person, not the sex/race/whatever." Admirably post-feminist, right?

The problem is, we've moved from pre to post without spending long enough in plain ol' feminism to actually get the job done. In the previous post's comments, Ted tries to reduce the problem to one of "bias at the margins." That's utter nonsense. The problem is in the process itself -- the way Clinton is received, interpreted, and given an impossibly small range of ways to define herself in the public sphere. People say that they "like her, just not enough" without stopping to consider whether this is because of the constricted way in which pundits fashion her image out of the raw materials she provides, even as they make so much more -- often with so much less -- of her male competitors. And those are, of course, the minority of opinion-shapers, the ones not hopelessly fixated on her hair, clothes, laugh, or wrinkles.
[...]
We don't yet have the luxury for voting for the person irrespective of sex. And until we do, we're pointlessly squandering desperately-needed top talent, and dissuading too many from even wading into the pool. Spending too many years going too close to a doctorate in cognitive science tells me that "role model" isn't a cliche; it's a concept that fundamentally maps how we define our lives. I'll be voting for Clinton in the hope that, eight years from now, we can be a little closer to saying "I'm voting for the person" -- and having it be meaningful.

Or as Esq put it elsewhere in the post, "I'd have to hesitate a nanosecond before voting against Schlafly."

There's a lot to unpack here, and it must be unpacked carefully. I certainly agree with Esq that a significant amount of the hostility Clinton faces -- hostility which extends way beyond legitimate policy differences and into shrill, irrational akresia -- stems from latent sexism. I'm never so tempted to vote for Clinton as I am when I want to send a message to the Chris Matthews of the world that their brand of misogyny won't fly any longer. And I think it's a positive act for liberals supporting Obama or other candidates, like Publius, to take stock of their reasons for their commitments. We should all be so self-reflective in any case, but with the specters that surround Clinton, it's particularly important.

I also think that taking Clinton's gender into account -- in a very specific way -- is not facially illegitimate. It can't be on pure solidarity grounds ("I'm a women, she's a women, so she gets my vote."). Indeed, the solidarity argument really disrespects female voters as agents who can decide their votes on the totality of the merits. But one can "notice" Clinton's gender certainly for the benefits a female president would bring for gender equity. President Hillary Clinton would aid the gender equity project by showing young women that they can rise to the highest positions of power in America, gender equity is an important concern, ergo, a candidate who can claim an advantage on the issue should gain a comparative advantage, all else being equal, over other candidates.

Nonetheless, there are problems with the argument Steinem and Esq are putting forward. First, all else isn't equal. Gender equity is one important consideration, but it's hardly the only one. There are legitimate differences between the candidates that can also legitimately influence my vote, and it is a mistake to assume that just because I found that Clinton's gender-equity advantage was outweighed by other factors, it meant I didn't consider it. At the very least, we have to account for Obama's similar effects as a role model and as a positive image for the world. Should women not be concerned with this? Do we really want to encourage this degree of identity balkanization? And even on the gender issue alone, the "role model" perk isn't the only factor. Policies matter -- are Clinton's superior to Obama's? Implementation matters -- can Clinton push through laws where Obama can't? By minimizing the import of these alternative questions even on the narrow question of "what candidate would be best for women's rights", Esq skirts the edge of the solidarity argument in a way that strikes an uncomfortable chord for me.

Furthermore, I agree with Jennifer Fang's point that this formulation harmfully casts the issue in terms of who wins at the "Oppression Olympics", and definitely places women of color in an impossible situation of being forced to choose between identities (indeed, the rhetoric here, by casting "Black" and "women" as irreconcilably opposed categories, erases the existence of Black women entirely).

Ultimately, however, Steinem’s piece (intentionally or unintentionally) draws a line in the sand between people of colour and women, essentially disregarding the everyday racism faced by Black and Brown people, and claiming the Oppression Olympics gold medal for women. Further, by casting the debate as between Black men and White women (despite her imperfect creation of Achola Obama), Steinem renders the woman of colour invisible, reaffirms the binary Black-White paradigm of race, and demands we take a side in the epic battle between race and gender. Is it no wonder, then, that women of colour have long felt alienated by feminists like Steinem? Where do we fit when we’re being asked to choose between Obama and Clinton as a metaphor for race versus gender? And how are we supposed to react when an incorrect choice labels us as “less radical”?

I am deeply uncomfortable with this "less radical" implication. Even on the identity politics axis alone, I don't think it's facially unreasonable to think that breaking a racial barrier is more important than breaking the sexual one. Nor would I be opposed to the opposite stance. "These and these" are the words of the radical, to appropriate from the Talmud. But I do think it's a serious problem when we start boxing in people's choices in a way that constrains their agency beyond a very narrow array of concerns.

Women (White and Black) can rationally decide that Clinton is the best overall candidate considering every issue, including gender-equity. And they can likewise decide that Clinton is not the best candidate on those grounds. Blacks can make the same determination. The important thing is less the decision they make as it is the factors they incorporate in their deliberations. So long as they deliberate cognizant of the issues under consideration -- including the existence and importance of fighting misogyny, including the existence and importance of fighting racism -- we would do well to respect them as rational actors, even when they make choices we dislike.

You Can't Always Get What You Want....

The conventional wisdom regarding GOP primaries is that what the establishment wants, the establishment gets. It's part of what makes it so difficult to believe Mike Huckabee is going anywhere in the primary process, despite his impressive victory in Iowa and his meets-expectations third place in New Hampshire. After all, if there is one candidate this side of Ron Paul the establishment is lined up against, it's Huckabee.

But there's a kink, as DJW of Lawyers, Guns, and Money points out. Even if you believe that the GOP house always wins, that presupposes that the house has a favored candidate. But there is no George W. Bush this primary season. No GOP candidate really has united the party apparatus. McCain was the establishment guy for awhile, but despite his best efforts to jettison the slightest hints of his former maverick-status, he's retained too many enemies in high places to solidify his position.

Keeping that in mind, Huckabee actually has at least a tenable path to the nomination. The next big primary is South Carolina, where Huckabee should do well. Michigan is Romney territory, but he can't claim too big a bounce because his father was the governor of the state. Then it's a question of how things shake out on Super Tuesday. Huck has to look good in Alabama, Arkansas (his home state), Georgia, Missouri, and even possibly Tennessee (Fred Thompson's home), and he could definitely compete in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. He won't get a resounding victory that day, but in my opinion he only has to hold position that day. If he's still standing strong after February 5th, then he'll be in position to make a strong challenge for the #1 spot the whole rest of the process.

Riding the Youth Wave

Andrew Sullivan reminds us that neither Hanover (Dartmouth) nor Durham (UNH) have reported yet. Based on the folks I know at Dartmouth, I know that Giuliani probably will gain at least one vote there. And he's in a tight enough duel with Paul that he could actually use it.

But obviously, this is where Obama needs to clean up. Youth powered him to victory in Iowa, and I know for a fact how lop-sided college towns can go. Can it be Obama's savior here?

Yay, drama!

What I'm Doing Right Now

In theory, I'm doing reading for class tomorrow, but thus far I've been totally ineffective at it. In reality, I'm trying to exercise my latent mental powers to influence the New Hampshire primary results. Aside from trying to will Obama past Clinton in the New Hampshire primary (the obvious one), I'm also pulling for Ron Paul to squeak past Rudy Giuliani on the Republican side. It's not because I particularly care for Ron Paul, but I do like the idea of humiliating Giuliani, and a fifth place finish behind a Texas nut-case would accomplish that goal rather nicely.

Though when I think about it, it's a tough call between "I'm not a racist but..." Paul and the only man who makes Dick Cheney look like Patrick Henry in terms of love for boundless executive power.

What Happened To My Iowa Bounce!?!

What happened to Obama's bounce? Remember, the shiny Iowa bounce that had him up double-digits over Clinton in New Hampshire? The whole sense of being a part of something? Where did it go?

Early results from New Hampshire have Clinton leading Obama by 4 points (Edwards is lagging badly). Not much, and I did learn a lesson from Iowa about trusting early numbers.

But unlike in Iowa, in the Granite State CNN has exit polling, and it's not looking good for Obama there either.

God dammit, I want my bounce!

Oh, and CNN has called the state for McCain.

Truth Squad Avengers!

Over at The Plank, Michelle Cottle reports that John McCain is establishing a "truth squad" specifically to counter negative attacks in South Carolina.

Can't say I blame him. Say what you will about McCain, but he was brutally smeared in South Carolina 2000, the worst being "Black baby" calls (McCain has an adopted child from Bangladesh, "unknown" operatives implied that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child). I find it amusing that South Carolina has become nearly legendary for low, dirty, vicious campaign tactics that really should shock the conscience of any sane, moral human being. It's yet another reason why the region's flaunting of its moral superiority over the rest of us grates me (others on the list: its leadership in committing treason-in-defense-of-slavery, politically charged "irregularities" in the state Bar scoring). It's a culture that developed out of its Jim Crow days, and has not dissipated to this day.

Huckabee's Catholic Problem

I've always kind of assumed the deep divisions between (conservative) American Catholics and Evangelicals had mostly healed by now. But maybe that's due to my stance as an outsider: as a liberal Jew, it's difficult for me to differentiate between various conservative Christian sects from each other. This also might lead me to pervasively underestimate the amount of anti-Mormon sentiment Mitt Romney faces. He's conservative (today, anyway)! He's Christian! What more do you folks want?

And so, it appears my instinct might be mistaken. Running some numbers on the Iowa caucuses, Philip Klinkner finds that Huckabee has a serious Catholic problem. Despite his statewide victory, he ran into serious trouble in Catholic counties, who went strongly for Romney. I guess I have to ask whether or not the data is skewed by non-Catholic (and evangelical-heavy) areas just went hard against Romney because he's Mormon (while Catholics were less disposed to be automatically biased against him), but to my poorly trained eye it looks like Klinkner separated those variables out. Debaser raises the possibility that Catholic concentration in urban areas presents a confounding variable, which seems a legitimate point. But it wouldn't surprise me if Huckabee was at least underperforming among Catholics.

As Matt Yglesias points out, if true, this represents a problem for Huckabee. Catholics are the paradigmatic case of a voting bloc that is sympathetic to social conservatism but also likes their government programs. It's his platform personified. If he turns them off, he's going to have trouble making any serious progress in the general.

Finkelstein Says Hi to Hezbollah

Isn't this precious: Norman Finkelstein, recently denied tenure at DePaul University, met with Hezbollah leaders in south Lebanon and took a tour of the area with them. He had this to say:

"After the horror and after the shame and after the anger there still remain a hope, and I know that I can get in a lot of trouble for what I am about to say, but I think that the Hezbollah represents the hope. They are fighting to defend their homeland."

Hope for what, I wonder? And if Hezbollah represents the hope, would Finkelstein say that we all Hezbollah now, then?

Clinton Unifies On One Issue

I like Hillary Clinton. She's not my favorite candidate, but I'd be quite pleased with her as President. And even when she annoys me (as, like any politician, she does from time to time), I respect her talent, drive and abilities.

But the one thing that really pushes me towards Hillary more than anything else is the blind, frothing hatred that is directed at her. It viscerally offends me, and makes me want to stand in her corner on fairness grounds alone. People worry about whether Obama would be safe as President, but honestly I think that Clinton faces a bigger threat. For fifteen years now, an entire cesspool of hate has bubbled around Hillary Clinton, one that has been fanned (if not sanctioned) by "mainstream" conservative forces. And let's be clear: it openly fantasizes about violence against her. Is there any contemporary analogue to the "I Wish Hillary had Married O.J." t-shirts? It's sick.

That's why recently, I've been pleased to see a diverse array of bloggers who have been willing to call folks out on the misogynistic BS Hillary faces as a matter of course. The response to the tears at the New Hampshire rally (prompting ABC to question whether her emotions will "get the best of her"). The buzzing about her "too harsh" responses about change at the Democratic debate. She's a cold emasculating ball-buster, when she isn't a frail, emotional wimp.

Stephen Suh summarizes the absurd double standard:

Is Hillary ahead in the polls? Then she's too cold, too ambitious and calculating. She's a woman, after all, and women are all nurture-y and, um, I don't know, emotional and stuff. Has Hillary lost her composure at any point? Then she's too emotional, too unstable. She's a woman, after all, and they can't be trusted to keep their inner weaknesses in check. That's why women aren't good leaders, you know.

Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me to see this type of treatment. It's always there when a woman gets uppity. She's too mannish until people find a way to describe her as too typically "female." Then they'll go straight back to the original criticism without missing a beat.

Reformed conservative John Cole, who I know is no fan of Clinton, similarly is sick of it, and pegs the source of the problem right where it should be: Hillary's a woman, and folks can't stand the idea of a woman showing a spine:

Quite frankly, I hate to say this, but I think what we are actually seeing is a double-standard here, and the feminists may be right. This is all about Hillary being a woman. John Edwards has been 150 times as angry the whole campaign, and has built his entire campaign around it. Howard Dean was angry, and people lapped it up. Here, Hillary isn’t really angry, just matter-of-fact and frustrated, and people are giving her shit.

He's right about Edwards. Of course, if a woman shows any degree of softness, then the other foot drops: she's weak and emotional. Here Steve Benen rightfully hits Edwards for cheap-shotting Hillary on that very point.

These are not Hillary fans. But they're hitting back against the clear, persistent, and unmistakable sexism that has plagued Clinton's campaign from day one. If someone as powerful, educated, talented, and able as Clinton can fall prey to it, what makes us think other women will be spared?

Mitt Romney is So Street

CNN's Political Ticker reports Mitt Romney pumping up his credentials against new Democratic front-runner Barack Obama:

"Frankly, I don't think Senator McCain, despite his service and his length of experience that that's going to be able to stand up to the message that Barack Obama has brought forward," he said.

"We better think about somebody who can stand up with a message and go toe to toe with [Obama]," Romney said, adding that he can "post up against" Obama.

Aside from being a ridiculous choice of words ("post up"? What the hell?), the underlying point is silly as well. If there is one Republican that I'm confident Obama can pick apart like none other, it's Mitt Romney, who is uncharismatic, screams "business as usual", and has all the authenticity of a used car salesman. Obama would eat him alive in the general.

Meanwhile, a Romney campaign adviser put this argument forward:

Romney senior adviser Ron Kaufman said Obama "demolished three senators" in Iowa and will "demolish" Clinton in New Hampshire, "so clearly having a senator against him is not a good idea."

Again, bizarre. First, Obama actually demolished either two or four senators (depending on whether we're counting fringe contenders Biden and Dodd), not three. Second, he also demolished the only Governor in the race, Bill Richardson. Third, of all the reasons Obama managed to best Clinton and Edwards (and Biden and Dodd) in Iowa, the fact that they're senators ranks pretty low on the list. And finally, even if the Senate really was the defining element of Obama's Iowa victory, there's no reason to think the dynamics of the Democratic primary in any way approximate those of the general election (I only wish!).

The Essence of Northfield

Friend-of-the-Debate-Link (and friend-of-the-Debate-Link-author!) Eva Lam pretty much nails it:

In less-publicized election night news, David Schraub covers the special election for the Minnesota State Senate, in which the eight precincts in Northfield, home of Carleton College (great school), St. Olaf College (great choirs), and a Malt-O-Meal factory (great Marshmallow Mateys), collectively made it a landslide for the Democratic candidate.

Mmm...Marshmallow Mateys...

The FRC Loves Judicial Review!

In China, anyway, where the high court has announced it will hear a case regarding forced abortion.

To be sure, the case they cite is rather appalling. A women who got pregnant prior to marriage was literally forced to have an abortion. Apparently, family planning officials "escorted her to a local abortion center, where her unborn child was given a lethal injection and later removed from the womb. Jin lost so much blood as a result of the procedure that she was hospitalized for six weeks and, in the seven years since, has been unable to conceive."

Yes, forcing women to make reproductive decisions against their will infuriates me too. It's a good thing the Chinese courts appear willing to intervene against the "law of the land" to stop it. Remember, Roe Rage isn't about legal theory, it's about results.

It's Not TV, It's Barack Obama

Barack Obama has declared The Wire to be his favorite television show. Jonathan Golob explains why that actually makes him a more appealing candidate.

Though it does seem to cut against his theme of a "politics of hope", no?

Ouma/Bundrage on ESPN2?

BoxingTalk is reporting that Kassim "The Dream" Ouma will face Cornelius "K9" Bundrage in a Junior Middleweight clash on ESPN2 (March 28th).

I'm a big Kassim Ouma fan. How can anybody not be, given his terrible personal history (he was a child soldier in Uganda)? And he has an exciting, punches-in-bunches style that's just fun to watch.

But Ouma has had struggles with his focus as of late. After losing to Jermain Taylor in a Middleweight title fight (Ouma didn't look bad there, but he has no business fighting at 160 lbs.), he lost a shocking upset split decision to Saul Roman. You have to think some of Ouma's problems are in his head, and given the trauma he's endured over his life it's hard to blame him. But still, with two straight losses you got to wonder if Ouma's really all together at the moment.

At his best, Ouma could pick Bundrage apart. Ouma owns wins over Verno Phillips (twice), Marco Antonio Rubio, Kofi Jantuah, J.C. Candelo, and gave Sechew Powell his first (and thus far only loss). Powell, of course, gave Bundrage his first loss via first-round knockout. Bundrage isn't a nobody, and is certainly capable of giving a distracted Ouma a tough time. But his upper-limit was exposed when he got blasted out of the ring by Joel Julio a few months back.

I don't really have anything against Bundridge, but he does tend to fight against boxers I like more than him (Walter Wright being the best example). And anyone who can root against Kassim Ouma doesn't have a soul. I'm rooting for "The Dream" to return to his former glory.

***

And while I'm talking about boxing, can I say that I am sick of boxing writers sabotaging the prospect of a Ricky Hatton/Junior Witter fight. The fight would be huge in England. Both have one loss, to pound-for-pound elite fighters (Floyd Mayweather and Zab Judah, respectively). They're definitely the #1 and #2 fighters in their division. As much credit as I give Hatton for fighting Mayweather, he's been ducking Witter for years now -- the latter hasn't lost a fight since 2000, against excellent opposition. What more does he need to do to earn the shot? He even responded to critics who said he was too boring by sensationally knocking out contender Vivian Harris in seven rounds. And folks are saying Hatton should -- legitimately -- be taking a fight with Paulie Malignaggi instead? After the latter squeaked past Herman Ngoudjo in a bout some thought the latter won? This is the Calzaghe/Kessler bout at 140 pounds. All the folks who are legitimizing Hatton's blatant ducking of Witter ought to be ashamed.

The Philosophy of the Limit

Note: This post has nothing to do with the book by Drucilla Cornell (to my knowledge; I've never read it) aside from the fact that she's awesome.

One of my ultimate pet peeves is people replacing the reality of justice with the perceived capacity to obtain it. By this, I mean folks who argue for a particular definition or conception of justice specifically on the grounds that it would be attainable, or against alternative conceptions because they have no identifiable stopping point. An "attainable" philosophy is one that we can realistically imagine "completing", so there is nothing left to do. An unattainable philosophy, by contrast, is not necessarily a futile one, it just means that its conceptual endpoint probably will never be reached. For example, "nobody should (unwillingly) die of illness" is an unattainable philosophical position -- we probably will never reach a point where nobody dies of a disease. But we can still move towards that reality, by making it progressively less likely that people will die of disease. Someone wedded to the idea of attainability, however, would argue that beyond some point it is no longer unjust when people die of disease -- there is an achievable "limit" at which point the requirements of justice have been met. Demands beyond that are unreasonable insofar as they effectively posit that we can never have a completely just health-care system.

This mode of argumentation pops up all the time. For example, liberals attack the sufficiency of negative liberty by noting that non-interference does not equalize the ability to act -- in a completely open world, some people can do many more things than others. If freedom implies access to at least a certain bundle of resources and privileges necessary to pursue one's desired ends in the public sphere, then the state must be enlisted to guarantee at least these minimums so people have the basic ability to act freely. In response to this argument, Raymond Plant articulates the conservative objection:

[F]reedom and ability cannot be the same thing, since no one is able to do all that he or she is free to do. I am free to do everything that I am not currently prevented by others from doing. Thi will turn out to be an indefinitely large number of things. However, it does not matter how rich and powerful or how intelligent or resourceful I am, it still remains the case that I am able to do only a small number of things that I am free to do.... There is no way in which abilities, capacities and powers can be equalised, and therefore if freedom is understood at least in part in terms of ability then we can never attain the liberal ideal of equal freedom, an ideal which can be attained if by freedom we mean mutual non-coercion. [Raymond Plant, "Neo-liberalism and the Theory of the State: From Wohlfahrtsstaat to Rechtsstaat," The Political Quarterly Vol. 75, pp. 24-37 (2004), 26]

Similar arguments are made by conservatives against color-conscious policies designed to increase diversity, which Justice Scalia has protested could be justified indefinitely; and in favor of jurisprudential techniques like originalism, which are praised for supposedly being concrete, definite, and definitive. It's barely even acknowledged that justice might require a degree of uncertainty, fluidity, or flexibility. What if racial justice does require indefinite use of color-conscious selection processes? Should we care?

I won't say I don't understand the motivation behind the instinct. For understandable reasons, we want an attainable definition of justice, because to deny this forces us to run an exhausting and unending marathon chasing moral progress. We want to say we've "made it", and we can't, no matter how hard we try. Fine, and I'm sorry about that. Nonetheless, there is nothing implicit in the definition of justice that requires it to be concrete or attainable. Arguing that a particular mode of justice should be adapted simply because it's easier is intellectually facile and childish. Justice isn't a destination, it's a pursuit. That's the problem with ideals -- you'll find they're rather difficult to pin down in reality. If you're chasing an infinite like justice, you can never expect to get there. And if you construct your definitions with an end-point in time, you'll never realize those dimensions of justice which lie beyond the limit.

Because of that truth, I'd argue that restricting the discourse of justice to its realizable forms demonstrates not just a failure of moral fortitude and imagination, but a failure of morality itself. To return to the freedom-as-ability argument, I will freely concede that we will never reach a world in which everyone will be able to do everything. But it is ridiculous to use that observation as an argument in favor of not trying to expand the relative opportunities and abilities of individuals. The irony is that, as Plant puts it, the defense of the non-coercion model rests on the idea that we can claim -- definitively and concretely -- that the persons under it possess "equal freedom". Here is where radical communism intersects with radical capitalism -- being able to describe freedom as being held by all equally is more important than the actual material reality that people live in. But why should we care whether we can say that we've hit the ideal of equal freedom? Shouldn't we care more about actually being closer to it? The non-coercion theorists care more about being able to call the world just than trying to press for the maximum possible amount of justice. After all, if you're still pursuing justice, you're conceding that the current state of affairs contains injustice. And that's depressing!

The point, then, is twofold. First, attainability, by itself, is not an argument for a particular conception of justice. There is no reason for us to suppose we should be so lucky as to exist in a universe where justice is attainable. That might be a depressing thought, but past Elementary School "depressing" isn't a valid response to social reality. Second, adopting concrete models of justice is unnecessarily constraining -- it denies the reality of any dimensions of justice that lie beyond the limit, and thus consigns us to an inferior world so we can play make-believe that we live in a superior one. It can be scary to admit just how much there is left in front of us (an infinite amount, to be exact). But nobody denied that morality required courage.