The girl gets banned again
Print Friendly Version| From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB | May 28, 2008 |
| Vol. 6, No. 2 |
This primary season, one of the strangest in history, is awash in nonconsequentials. It has swung back and forth between the statements of two pastors and the comments of two women, all of them at best secondary to the real issues of the time.
The pastors, Hagee and Wright, gave us a glimpse of the extremes on both the left and the right sides of the Democratic Party.
One of the women, Michelle Obama, made what I considered a perfectly understandable statement from a woman who comes from a community long trapped by slavery, segregation, poverty, and inequity while the rest of the country looked on and did little or nothing. "This is the first time," she said, "when I have been really proud to be an American."
Of course she's proud to be alive when this country can finally see an African-American candidate more as a serious presidential candidate than as an African-American. So am I. What Irish Catholic, who could remember both the tales of anti-Catholicism in this country and the "Irish need not apply" signs on help-wanted posters in the midst of the Depression, did not feel the same when John F. Kennedy mounted the podium to accept the Democratic nomination for President at the Democratic convention in 1960.
Then, last week, when asked why she continues to stay in the race for the nomination, Hillary Clinton cited the fact that President Bill Clinton was not nominated until June of 1992 and, she noted wisely, we are so far from the convention anything can still happen in U.S. politics to change the dynamics of the race. Remember, for instance, Gary Hart's girlfriend or Muskie's tears or Eagleton's medical records or the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Those are occurrences of historical fact. They are neither threats nor hopes. They are nothing for which a person ought to be expected to apologize. They are simply facts that need to be considered, perhaps, before we fold up the electoral tent in so close a race. But for the people who want her out of the race, Clinton's reminder looked like it just might be the bomb they have been waiting for. Unable to prove the context of the comment, it is also impossible to disprove any interpretation that's made of it. Convenient. Also troubling.
As a slightly-used American history teacher, I have, consequently, found myself fascinated, frustrated and totally confused -- all of them in turn -- at the twists in this year's Democratic primary. We have, I am convinced, two competent and committed candidates -- people to be proud of, people worthy of support. But I am not as sure of the quality of the system they're in. Either the party or the news media.
In the midst of an electoral contest in which neither candidate is capable of garnering the required number of pledged delegates, the race is beginning to look like a fraternity pledge party. Consider the situation:
At this point, the Democrats have one candidate, barely ahead, who is reportedly holding secret meetings to choose a vice-presidential candidate.
The other candidate, barely behind, is being pressured -- dinned -- day and night by the news media and pols to leave the race however unfinished it is.
Two key states have been disenfranchised in the primary system by the Democratic Party itself.
The Republican candidate, John McCain, is still being called "the presumptive Republican candidate by the press," while the Democratic party has apparently simply dumped the whole function of the Democratic convention at a time when the party may never have needed a convention more. The goal, it seems, is to forget the fact that the country has yet to really make up its mind about who should be the Democratic candidate. As a result, the last of the state primaries do not count. An electoral convention does not count. The country, it seems, does not count.
What counts, apparently, is that the Democratic Party be able to start its run for the roses now. Today. This moment. This is, it seems, more an exercise in party politics than it is in presidential politics.
But it is not the Democratic Party that will take office. It is one person and one person alone whose personality, experience, preparation and goals will make all the difference to the role and place of the United States of America in the world. We may need all the time the calendar gives us to decide between such evenly matched candidates. We may need all the time we can get to know which candidate is best tooled to deal with each emerging situation.
We may need the long, slow, intense electoral process at least as much, if not more, than in most periods before this one.
I have tried hard to make sense of such a situation. There has to be a reason why the party would want to get rid of one of its best candidates ever. Why would any party rush to judgment at a time like this, when the reputation of the United States in the world has never been lower; when the international risks have never been higher; when the economy has never been more challenged by the costliest "war" in history and a failed foreign policy has put us at the mercy of an oil cartel that has the power to take both the war machine and the country to its knees.
| ABC News report on Jaime Nared |
Finally, today, I found another story that may have more to do with the situation than we want either to believe or to admit. CNN ran a video feature on the plight of a 12-year-old basketball phenom, a girl, Jaime Nared, who has been denied the right -- banned, actually -- from playing on the boys grade school basketball team where she has been starring recently. The boys on her team want her there. They know how good she is. The boys and the parents of the opposing teams do not. They know how good she is, too, and that, they say, intimidates their boys. So they moved to have the girl banned from the team in the middle of the season.
When reporters asked her what she intended to do when she gets out of school, Jaime answered, "Play in the NBA." N-BA, note.
From where I stand, the parallel may be too close for comfort. Instead of pressuring even the superdelegates to make up their minds early, as well as pressure candidates to leave the race, maybe we better all just stay in the process till the convention. Better that the people decide than that committees, commissions and boys who aren't accustomed to playing against more competent women do it for us.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
You mentioned two pastors
You mentioned two pastors but not the third pastor - Rev. Michael Pfleger. I would think his comments are more relevant to this Catholic audience.
deb I happen to be in the
deb
I happen to be in the demographics proclaimed as typical Hillary Clinton supporters, but I did not vote for her. She is a great candidate and as all women that are successful, she has done well in the ‘male’ arena by mastering the arts of the ‘male’ arena; that’s what it takes for a woman to succeed. Ironically, that is why I did not vote for her. I sympathize strongly with those that want her to be the nominee, but let me use a different sort of analogy for the rush to end this part of the electoral process.
I used to be a baseball fan and one year my favorite team, the Red Sox, was ahead in the top of the 9th inning. In the bottom of 9th inning, they lost the game. I want the Democratic nominee to win in November but have my doubts that they can seal the deal. It also means the nominee needs a strong VP to run with as well as a strong organization, and all of that takes time. It makes sense to get started as soon as possible. Yes, people do need time, but we have deadlines to meet.
Elections have been centered on the strong emotions: fear, greed, and hate. Fear of the terrorists, greed for more tax breaks and hatred of the gay community, of which I am a part. I want something more. For my part, the issue of the day is fear. While we ponder whether or not to vote for Obama or Clinton, John McCain will become president. I believe either Obama or Clinton can beat him or loose to him. I will support the Democratic nominee whom ever it might turn out to be and I hope it will be Obama.
Fight, Hillary, fight!
Fight, Hillary, fight! Heck, why stop at the convention, run as an independent! Wouldn't be wonderful to have all three candidates to choose from.
(and even I'm not sure if that was sarcastic)
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
This column is an anomaly
This column is an anomaly for you, Sister Joan. I have been receiving your columns for several years and always feel you are right on target. I also loved your theological comments and participation in the PBS program re new thought in the church. But this column isn't fair and unbiased. I'm a die-hard liberal, and will vote for whichever candidate comes out with the most pledged votes and superdelegates. But at this late date, with Sen. Obama having an insurmountable lead, the arguments/excuses by Sen. Clinton and her team for her staying in the race are becoming more and more specious. Her reasons change every week, and as they do she contradicts statements she has made in the past (e.g., I will abide by the DNC's ruling re Florida and Michigan's exclusion, but then, when her last-gasp hope is seating those delegates, no, it's not fair. Etc etc etc) Yes, Senator Clinton has faced deep-seated, hidden, denied-but-clearly-there sexism. But Senator Obama has faced the same kind of covert racism. Let's not play the "there's more sexism than racism" card. It serves no useful purpose. Senator Clinton is the one who got nasty toward Obama, and pushed it and pushed it and pushed it, even when she was told by everyone but Bill that it was counterproductive. There is something tragic (as in Sophocles and Shakespeare tragic) in her dogged refusal to face facts and votes. I wish her well, but this has gone far enough. Oh, one more thing: surely, surely you cannot have said what you did about her Robert Kennedy assassination comment being simply a fact, with no other implications? Stop, take a few deep breaths, go within, and then look at her RFK comment again. It was inexcusable. After all of this, I have to say that I'm still a fan, and keep up the good fight.
Sr Joan, the racial
Sr Joan, the racial inequalities and gender inequalities are real, but your most cogent argument is "how worthy is the entire SYSTEM in which ANY candidate must operate"?
After three or four generations of "anything goes", and of being unable or unwilling to deny ourselves anything, at any cost, we have the governmental system that we deserve. And it does not serve us for ourselves, or as an admirable example to the rest of the world.
Whoever wins this election, it will be business as usual in Washington. And the country as a whole will not move forward.
To those who assert that the
To those who assert that the reason Hillary crushed Obama in West Virginia and Kentucky is because those places are filled with racists who wouldn't vote for a black man under any circumstances, I propose the following: if it had been Colin Powell running against Hillary instead of Obama, he would have fared very well and quite probably would have beat her. And why? Because Powell is a career military man, and the military is revered in places like West Virginia and Kentucky. Furthermore, he is a man of mainstream values not hanging with the likes of William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, or Rev. Jeremiah Wright who curses the United States from his pulpit. To suggest that white people who vote for Hillary are doing so only for racist reasons is itself reverse racism and well as condescending and elitist.
And if Obama is elected President, will those who have the teremity of criticize "the Messiah" or his policies be accused of racism as well?
Hillary nor her husband
Hillary nor her husband served in the military either. So if they want the military person why did they vote for her? Rev. Wright did NOT curse the U.S.! He said IF the U.S. does not change THEN God #^%$ America. BIG difference. Any more arguments?
Everything is interpreted in
Everything is interpreted in the negative. It could just as easily be stated that Democrats in West Virginia and Kentucky are in the lead with regard to women's equality. There might even be some basis for such a statement considering how tough women in those states have had to be in the face of mining disasters and poverty. They might, in fact, be thinking that tough talking Hillary would be better at defeating McCain than would Obama with his dignified manner and issue-focused campaigning.
Gabriel Austin May I express
Gabriel Austin
May I express my surprise tha you have no comment on the vigorous support given by both Democratic candidates to the abortion movement?
i can't believe the
i can't believe the hillary-hatred spews even on a catholic website.
sister joan, you are dead-on, as usual. thank you.
Jose LG Sr. Joan, I admire
Jose LG
Sr. Joan,
I admire you and your work greatly, yet I am in need of some clarification by some of your comments related to Hillary Clinton and her being a good, viable presidential candidate?
From my point of view, she voted and continued to support the invasion of Iraq; she is deeply entrenched in money from lobbyists, i.e. healthcare; she has not run a clean, classy campaign, often times, slinging mud at Obama.
Did you know that in the middle of her marital crisis in reference to Monica Lewinsky, she invited and consulted Rev. Jeremiah Wright?
I know women have suffered and continue to suffer, particularly on a global scale because of men; I know sexism still exists; yet at the same time, women, particularly Western women, have made great gains and progress.
It seems men are soley to blame for the terrible, downtrodden state of women, and I know this is true, and yet, and I am not a Republican, I have not heard you mention anything about women taking personal responsibility, and not just solely blaming men for premarital sex, unwanted pregnancies, out of wedlock children, women going at a faster rate to prison than men in American, etc.
Where do you draw the line? How do strike a balance? etc.
You forgot to mention
You forgot to mention Hillary's advocacy for abortion, contraception and the normalization of homosexuality. Supporting this three pronged attack against the Church and the family is the Progressive's greatest hope to tear down the institutional organization of the Catholic Church. This goal–destroying the faith of the fathers–(read: male patriarchy), is pretty much the subtext of every column here for the last five years. And therein lies your answer to this inexplicable love affair with Ms Clinton despite her Iraq record.
You draw the line laid down by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Chose one of two options: vote or support an anti-life, anti-catholic politician like Hillary Clinton and put yourself outside of the Church OR support the gospel of life, be in communion with your Church, and receive the sacraments worthily.
May I share an article that
May I share an article that I wrote for my blog called Hillary-Wins.com Here is the direct link to that one article. http://alessandromachi.blogspot.com/2008/05/sexism-in-2008-yet-hillary-clinton.html
http://www.Hillary-Wins.com
http://www.CaucusCheating.com
http://www.Florida-Michigan.com
From what I understand we
From what I understand we are back to rules again. The twelve year old was allowed to play until a rule currently on the books succeeded in banning her from this season. Everyone needs to change the rule so she can play next season. End of problem if this is done. At present parents can cite and use the rule in place.
Clinton needs to play by rules in place too. Can she catch up to Obama? Only if total catastrophe such as an assasination happens and that's why it was so bad for her to say it. Why couldn't she have said her husband was running in June in California and so was Bobby Kennedy -- and leave it at that? What did she need to bring up the assasination for? And just like the sniper fire, she has said this before. She has a problem with telling stories that don't quite fit whether in truth or in tone; perhaps that's why some who voted for her in their primaries will not in the fall should she finagle her way to the candidacy. I am white, female and older - in case anyone wants to put my statements down to one sour group or another. I don't like being played a fool and I think that's what she has done. Such high hopes at the beginning I had for her but I don't like lies, poor planning from a supposed leader, or the cry of sexism because she didn't plan for the long haul and thought she was special enough not to need to campaign past the big primary day. Well she miscalculated from many angles and she lost me as a supporter.
Hi Joan It has been so rare
Hi Joan
It has been so rare that you have I seen things so differently. First of all to paint Hillary as an outsider being forced aside by the "fraternity" is absolutely nonsense. Hillary is the ultimate political insider. With Bill's connections and people indebted to him, with her alliances with the party elite in n.y., ohio and pennsylvania, with her wealth and all of her backing and endorsements it is amazing that Obama did anything at all. I was in Toledo, Ohio I saw it. It was the party brass that gave her Lucas county. As for the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida that takes an incredible rewriting of history to make it come out the way you do. It was her and her people that imposed the penalty. Look at the vote at the DNC, it was her supporters on the committee that insisted on the penalty. The only one to not vote for it was an Obama supporter. Not only did her people rigorously fight to not count the vote, and Terry was incredible harsh toward Michigan, her own statements when the penalty was imposed clearly shows that she was for it and did not see it as disenfranchisement.
Joan, how can you argue to include votes in primaries where in one state there was no campaigning and in the other the candidate wasn't even on the ballot. How is that fair to Obama? How is that just? Hillary agreed to do it that way. Obama took his name off, didn't campaign, played by the rules, and is now only 46 votes from winning with 3 primaries to go and 200 supers left to declare. And now she wants to go back change the rules after he did what she told him to do but now wants to count those votes without any adjustments. And what is really scary is that she accuses him, who has done so much to enfranchise voters as being the one who wants to disenfranchise voters.
Calls for her to drop out is not about her gender but that to continue this is bad for Democrats in November, particularly when what she is saying is so harsh on Obama. Look at history, every other primary when the candidate was this far behind in the delegate count at this point in the primary pressure began to build for the one behind to step out of the race. Her own husband did it to Gary Hart in 92, yes their names were still on the ballot in California but Gary had stopped campaigning and had his name only because it was too late to take it off and Bill had already declared victory. Why not Obama? (see how she rewrites history to twist it into something it is not).
And now she wants to change the rules so that she can still win. I don't see where her gender plays at all in this. In the exit polls where voters declared that gender was an issue the votes went 2 to 1 for Hillary. In other words gender helped her, people voted for her because she was a woman. Where race was the issue voters voted 4 to one against Obama. Race hurt him. Here is another narrative Joan, see if this runs closer to the facts. Black man runs a campaign in a rich white man's world and wins. Rich white woman doesn't like it and changes the rules so that she can win because it is so unfair that a black man would beat her when she wants the election for herself. He and she ran their campaigns by agreed upon beforehand rules. but she didn't get the result she wanted so she now wants to change the rules.
No racist undertones in her logical why we should do this. "He can't carry Pennsylvania, Ohio or West Virginia" Why? The polls say because he is a black man and those areas have a lot of racists in them. She knows very well that is what she is saying and therefore waht she means is "Change the rules so I win cause he is black and I am white and whites should win."
In your video I saw not only a girl, I also saw a girl of color. Isn't it funny that the first woman to be allowed to try out for an NBA team was a white woman. It's okay for a white woman to play with the boys, just not a black one. Maybe race not gender has the dominante role to play in this story, but like in your narrative, it remains hidden because you want to make it about gender only.
Joan, you are wrong on this. Really, really wrong.
The Hillary issue isn't a
The Hillary issue isn't a women's issue.
Women can behave just as badly as men.
Her blatantly racist appeals to the voters of Kentucky and Indiana were reprehensible.
And, anybody who thinks her reference to RFK -- or anything else she has done -- was inadvertent just hasn't been paying attention.
I think it diminishes the plight of the kid who's being prevented from playing basketball to put her in the same category as the candidate.
Dear Sr. Joan, When
Dear Sr. Joan, When attempting to reach maturity, I was always told to play by the rules. The DNC did make Rules regarding their Primaries and to change them now would be an abomination. All candidates agreed to abide by the rules and as crazy as the rules are: Rules are still Rules!! How many generations of people have been taught as I was??? Do we suddenly start teaching different??? Oh and by the way-how about the write -in vote??? I like Hillary too!!!!!