Hillary at the Convention-White Privilege at its worst
I was a bit surprised to hear that Hillary R. Clinton will be allowed so much air time at the convention. I have to ask the question, why? Since I have been old enough to vote, the primary winner was the winner period. Of course normally the presidential primary winner was a white, male millionaire.
They were not expected to give airtime to the looser. They were not expected to have their caucus votes counted on the floor. Why have the rules changed since an African American Man has won the nomination?
Will the rules change again when Asian Americans, Latino/a & Native Americans win the nomination for president?
This is Sen. Barack Obama's time. The convention is about him and his vision for our nation. If Hillary had won, Obama would not be there trying to grab the spotlight. Hillary should stay home!
I believe this is a clear example of white privilege at its worst!
|
August 16, 2008 |
Jo Ann Bowman | Comments (113 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 16, 2008 4:41:03 PM
Jo Ann --
I think your opprobrium is misplaced here. The losers often speak at the conventions.
In 2004, speakers included 2004 losers Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Carol Moseley Braun, Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Graham, and Al Sharpton - and, of course, John Edwards (as the veep).
In 2000, Gore's major opponent - Bill Bradley - spoke.
In 1992, Jerry Brown refused to withdraw from the race - so he wasn't offered a speaking slot. Remember "Let Jerry Speak!" In the end, he ended up speaking to second his own nomination. I remember all the other losers that year speaking (Tsongas, Kerrey, Harkin, Wilder) - but can't find a source online for that.
In 1988, Dukakis's major opponent was Jesse Jackson - who did speak. Again, I remember Gephardt, Biden, Schroeder and Babbit speaking (but can't find a source.) Don't remember if Hart spoke.
In any case, I think the record is clear: Democratic presidential primary losers almost ALWAYS speak at the conventions.
Your concern that somehow the rules are different for Barack Obama's losers is misplaced.
Posted by: Ms Mel Harmon | Aug 16, 2008 5:23:23 PM
While I'm sure Senator Obama is not involved in every detail of convention planning, I do not believe that he didn't make the choice to have Hillary speak. It may be (probably is) mostly a political rather than personal choice, but at any rate----it almost sounds like you're saying that Obama didn't want her to speak but was forced to do so because of her race. I don't believe that. If Obama decided she shouldn't be there, she wouldn't be there. He's not allowing her on the stage because she's white. He's allowing her on the stage because she broke a lot of barriers in her campaign and it was an extremely close race. And, as Kari points out, it's not unusual for the losers to speak. I don't see white privilege here.
Posted by: Linley | Aug 16, 2008 6:24:32 PM
If the victor(s) needs the support of the loser(s), the victor(s) must treat the looser(s) great with courtesy and care.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 16, 2008 6:53:49 PM
I don't see it as white privilege. I see it as respecting the fact that she came extremely close to winning the nomination. We haven't seen an election as close as that in a long time. The fact that she won more than 18 million votes says a lot about her candidacy. I think it would have been an insult to all her delegates (which makes up a sizable chunk of the delegation) to not allow her some time at the convention.
Plus, for all we know she could be the VP choice.
Posted by: backbeat | Aug 16, 2008 6:59:46 PM
The fact that she won more than 18 million votes says a lot about her candidacy. I think it would have been an insult to all her delegates (which makes up a sizable chunk of the delegation) to not allow her some time at the convention.
you know what i find to be an insult? This whole 18 million cracks meme.
That they added language about the "18 million cracks in the ceiling", insinuating that the rest of us women who didn't vote support hillary are bupkis. No, Senator Clinton is NOT some big advocate for women, because she stood by the Men in her campaign. Fired the woman campaign manager who was urging her to apologize for her iraq vote and not go racist and negative. Instead, she kept the five million dollar man, Mark Penn. I graduated from high school in 1977 and only now, in 2008 are women making 77 cents to the dollar. Hillary Clinton ruined her opportunity to stick with the women and do the right thing....be humble about killing thousands of iraqi children for no damned reason.
Posted by: LT | Aug 16, 2008 7:23:54 PM
As a woman who represented a male candidate who lost the nomination after winning the Oregon primary, I think Hillary had better be very careful. She is not the nominee but is getting 2 speeches (hers and Bill's), the role call vote, and a lot of attention. Why should she also be considered as VP given some of the things she said about Obama during the primary?
At some point, the "our candidate should have won" attitude grates on women who were saying this Spring, "Yes, I want a woman president, not necessarily this one". Turns out she was wise not to take some of the advice she got from Mark Penn.
The Washington Post has a column from a black journalist with an interesting take on Hillary and Mark Penn:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081502825.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Memo From a Poison Penn
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, August 16, 2008; Page A15
Let us note that Hillary Clinton did not take Penn's advice, though she continues her association with him.
Clinton did make much of her Middle American birth into the middle class, and she did pretend to be as one with the white working class, as Penn instructed in his strategy memo.
But she did not launch a frontal attack on Obama's life in Hawaii or on his diverse background or charge -- as Penn had urged -- that Obama is not "at his center fundamentally American."
The Clinton campaign made misjudgements from acting like the inevitable campaign before the voting started, to being a top-down campaign which didn't seem to understand grass roots organizing. They had internal campaign debates according to recent reports, and alienated people who might have originally been disposed towards her but came to a point of "Sorry, Hillary, but the way you are running your campaign...".
In 1984, Hart and Jackson each got major speeches. The 2 menin total had about 80% of of the number of delegates needed to win the nomination--what % of the final number did Hillary have? Don't tell me that popular vote figures into this equation. They thought the process had been unfair and pushed for the "Democracy Package" which led to the Fairness Comm. and rewriting of the delegate selection rules.
Hillary doesn't seem so much interested in that sort of thing as much as walking a fine line--supporting Obama while saying her supporters deserve "catharsis". OK, what do they want, a demonstration at the convention and then they will stop saying Hillary should have won and anyone who says otherwise doesn't support women?
I've got news for Hillary Clinton supporters: Mondale did not win the Oregon primary, but there were Oregon Democrats who'd supported Mondale in the primary and from the moment the convention was over started pushing the "REAL Democrats supported Mondale from the beginning!". That is not a way to win friends and influence people--or haven't the hard care Hillary supporters thought that far?
Which is why I came to the point of saying in 2008 (when someone asked why as a woman I didn't support Hillary) that I would respond, "Sorry, but she is running the Mondale campaign all over again, and I was a Hart delegate". No one argued with me about that reason.
Obama won in Oregon and won the nomination fair and square. There are many things at stake in this election, not the least of which are Supreme Court nominations. If we hear "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" many more times, a lot of us will start saying "Oh, grow up! She's not the first woman to lose a primary and she won't be the last. She was defeated by a more powerful, better organized campaign.".
Call that attitude anything you want.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 16, 2008 7:25:46 PM
I didn't like all the insults towards women who weren't Clinton supporters - I was one who wasn't supporting her. She wasn't even in my top candidates. I was quite mad at the continual taunts about how you were a traitor if you didn't support Clinton. I even blogged about it.
However, I don't think that should keep her from being a part of the convention. It's not like she picked up a few delegates and then dropped out - she came very close to winning.
Not allowing her to participate would just continue the problems we've been having with healing the Party after the primary. We need every Democrat working together to win in November.
Posted by: backbeat | Aug 16, 2008 7:37:28 PM
Jenny, I agree that she should speak, sorry if I came down hard, just really annoyed about the 18 million deal. So glad that we're going with a 50 state strategy instead of Penn's schlock.
Posted by: Jack Lorts | Aug 16, 2008 7:43:12 PM
What I see is a smart politician (Obama) courting and bringing his adversaries (read Hillary supporters) into the fold. Would it be better to leave Hillary out in the cold, offend many significant Hillary supporters (who could potentially help Obama win in the fall) and instead go ahead and maybe lose in November? That doesn't sound like smart politics to me!
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Aug 16, 2008 7:57:20 PM
Jo Ann Bowman: I believe this is a clear example of white privilege at its worst!
In no way should Senator Obama's graciousness be confused with racism. In fact, Ms. Bowman is insulting our candidate by implying he isn't in control of his own nominating convention.
I'm beginning to believe that Ms. Bowman is sorely in need of psychotherapy, focused on stress disorder and anger management. I mean this in all seriousness. Holding that kind of fear and anger inside you is really unhealthy, and she would live healthier, happier, and longer, if she sought help.
Posted by: DanK | Aug 16, 2008 8:04:32 PM
Look, I'm sorry to have to say this, but your post is pretty blatant racism. Hillary isn't being allowed to speak because she is white. She is speaking because she is a close second in the vote total for the democratic nomination.
Hillary voters have a right to have their votes represented and to hear their candidate speak at the convention. It is after all, the DEMOCRATIC convention--not the Obama convention.
I wonder what you would be saying if the opposite situation had occurred.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 16, 2008 8:07:38 PM
backbeat:
Oh I agree - all the nasty comments made towards us women who did not support Clinton definitely made me mad. Actually, at times I was more than mad.
I'm just at the point with this election that I am on the U.S. Senate race - yes, some things in the primary made me mad. But staying mad over those things isn't as important as ensuring we get a Democrat into the position. The Bush Administration has already worked hard to set back rights for women - I can't take another 4 years of that.
So whether I was on the winning end or the losing end, I want to make sure I work together with the supporters of the other candidate. It's the only way we win in November.
Posted by: Cynthia and Rosa will get us out of Iraq | Aug 16, 2008 8:27:31 PM
FIGHT THE POWER! Vote Green: Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente for President and Vice-President.
Why not vote for TWO WOMEN OF COLOR instead of choosing to vote for the lesser of two evils?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 16, 2008 8:32:30 PM
I'm going to keep saying this until people get it.
Jo Ann's post is predicated on the assumption that the losers don't typically get to speak at the convention.
As I demonstrated above, that's false. They almost always speak. In fact, the threshold for a speaking slot is VERY, VERY low.
You don't have to even win a single delegate. In 2004, Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton spoke. In 1988, Bruce Babbit spoke.
Posted by: doretta | Aug 16, 2008 8:35:50 PM
Look, I'm sorry to have to say this, but your post is pretty blatant racism.
DanK, you might want to revisit the definition of the word "racism", also, the word "sorry" and the phrase "have to".
I think Jo Ann is wrong in her conclusions for all the reasons that have been listed here.
That doesn't make her post "racist" and I find your introduction of that term in this case obnoxious and detrimental to the conversation.
Posted by: Ten Bears | Aug 16, 2008 8:46:36 PM
We would do well to recall that neither presumptive nominee has in fact been nominated, be they rich white frat boy or up-by-the-bootstraps halfbreed. The Clintons are of the Bilderbergers, card carrying members of the vast reichwing conspiracy, and though not as notorious her family (the Rodhams) are every bit the dynastic old money as Bush, and her ardent supporters the Rothchilds.
Nothing, surprises me.
Choosing the lessors of evil, is never-the-less choosing evil
Posted by: LT | Aug 16, 2008 8:48:41 PM
As someone who admired Rep. Bowman's work in the legislature, I have a clue about what she is trying to say.
Maybe if you listed the prime time speakers at the last 50 years of Democratic conventions, you'd find lots of people who ran for the nomination and lost. That is not the point. To the best of my knowledge, none of them bragged that they got so much of the popular vote that they should have as much respect as the candidate with the most delegates.
However, flip the situation around. Suppose Obama had gotten 18 million votes, but Hillary had gotten the nomination by earning the most delegates. Would Hillary have been as gracious or would she have given Obama a speech that was not in prime time and no roll call vote?
The people who suspect the latter might be true are the ones Hillary has to worry about alienating if she doesn't walk a very fine line at the convention.
Are we no longer relying on the premise that if one candidate gets more delegates than needed before the convention, that candidate can make decisions on how the convention is run (much as Kerry chose Obama to be the Keynote Speaker in 2004)?
Of course Hillary should be speaking at the convention just as Jesse Jackson spoke in the 1980s when he ran. He came closer to winning the nomination than any African American except 2008 Obama.
What I think rubs some people the wrong way is the attitude of some Hillary supporters (more than the attitude of Sen. Clinton herself) that gender tops race, and every female should be more excited at how well Hillary did than inspired by Obama.
I don't think Hillary should stay home (she's married to a former president as well as being the runner up), but I do think Rep. Bowman has a right to express her opinion.
Posted by: Jo Ann Bowman | Aug 16, 2008 8:49:46 PM
I think I am misunderstood. I am not suggesting that Hillary should not speak at the convention. What I said is the amount of time allotted to Clinton is out of proportion to her finish in the primary. Should she speak sure! Should she be giving this "sherow" admiration at the convention. No. It would not happen if the nomination had gone to Edward's (of course before his current troubles) or any other of the traditional candidates.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 16, 2008 8:55:29 PM
Jo Ann --
I've been trying desperately for days to find a convention schedule. Can you post a link that shows how much time (and when) Hillary is expected to speak for?
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 16, 2008 9:02:20 PM
Actually, I think the fact that she came very close to being the winner is all the more reason why she gets more time than candidates in the past. We don't normally have this close of a finish, so candidates typically don't get as much face time at the convention.
And of course we've not had such candidate be the spouse of a former Democratic president - a former president who would normally be included in the event.
I think had any other candidate come this close, they would have similar speaking duties. Of course their spouse wouldn't have much of a role - but then their spouse isn't a former Democratic president.
Personally, I find this all to be much ado about nothing and just another way to throw salt in the wounds that were created during the primary.
Posted by: LT | Aug 16, 2008 9:31:57 PM
Seems to me that Rep. Bowman is not only entitled to her opinion, but perhaps also pushing back on things like this:
http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/obama-bullying-hillary-out-of-convention/
THAT is what is unprecidented--the runner up's supporters pressuring the presumptive nominee. I think the salt being thrown is from the folks at websites like that.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 16, 2008 9:44:23 PM
Well, yes, Jo Ann is absolutely entitled to her own opinion.
And yes, the PUMA people are behaving in utterly outrageous and ridiculous ways. (Frankly, I think most of them are GOP operatives attempting a grand RF.)
That said, losers at the convention almost always speak. 2008 isn't and shouldn't be any different.
Posted by: ? | Aug 16, 2008 9:50:00 PM
Hmm, So you're "not suggesting Hillary should not speak at the convention" but in your original post you say "Hillary should just stay home!"
Perplexing.
Posted by: LT | Aug 16, 2008 9:56:46 PM
Kari, yes, Hillary should speak at the convention. But if there are any "spirit of Senaca" Hillary delegates in the Oregon delegation, the delegation meetings in the HQ hotel every morning (do they still pass out the delegate credentials every morning at those meetings?) should be very interesting.
Anyone know who the Oregon delegation chair, Obama and Clinton caucus chairs are this year?
Posted by: backbeat | Aug 16, 2008 10:10:58 PM
This PUMA claims to be a liberal.
WOW
http://madamab.wordpress.com/
Posted by: David English | Aug 16, 2008 10:21:30 PM
Jo Ann,
I think it's more of the Clinton's "Me me me me" attitude then white privilege. There's no doubt that both Clintons should be allotted some time to speak at the convention, I personally think both of them should have been put on the first night. Highlight and celebrate what they've done and then move on.
Personally I haven't seen the schedule, but I have heard quite a few Clinton supporters insist that Obama can't win without them. That I do have a big problem with. I've supported Obama as a candidate for almost a year and a half (yes, back when everyone was laughing at his chance of winning). Those who say we need the Clinton's to win in November are just delusional.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 16, 2008 10:25:10 PM
As it turns out, the Hillary campaign wasn't really pushing for a bunch of concessions. Rather, the Obama campaign offered them as a move toward party unity -- and the disunity stories are over-hyped GOP spin.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Aug 16, 2008 10:36:21 PM
This author's posts started at the ridiculous and went downhill from there.
Posted by: admiral_naismith | Aug 16, 2008 10:57:13 PM
Why are we still having this argument? Are not Obama and Clinton now united against McAncient?
Please save it for the Republicans.
Posted by: Val | Aug 16, 2008 11:39:16 PM
Jo Ann,
I really think you are off base on this one.
Why should Hillary not speak and "stay home" instead of working to pull her supporters (and there are many) to fully commit to getting Obama elected? Why should Hillary be treated differently than almost every other white male presidential candidate in recent history that came in second place?
I am very pleased that Sen. Obama is working with Sen. Clinton to show a united front for our party so we can win back the Whitehouse. We will need every one on board to win this election.
Val
Posted by: Becky | Aug 16, 2008 11:52:40 PM
Joanne I have long admired your work, your passion and your unwillingness to compromise. I choose to believe you misspoke and may be misunderstood.
Having said that I want you to recall another wonderful candidate that did not prevail. Perhaps you remember him. The Reverend Jesse Jackson. Who after receiving rousing support and a lot fewer votes than Senator Clinton was not a selected speaker. Was not going to be allowed to address the Convention. However he too had delegates, some from Oregon. Perhaps you remember some of them, Richard (sorry I forget his last name) and Ron Herndon (when he was still a radical) and Dick Celsi the Chair of the Demo Party of Oregon. When we were in Atlanta at another D Convention there was an effort to keep him from speaking. However, we all (YES ALL) joined forces to demand that Jesse be allowed to deliver what was feared to be a divisive speech. The leadership of the DNC tried to silence his message as well. It became clear that it would be more decisive to keep him from the podium. There were accusations of racism for not allowing him to speak. I for one am tired of the race card when in fact we have just witnessed the most outrageous sexist conspiracy against a great woman leader ever witnessed.
If unity is wanted then perhaps it is time to get over the name-calling and prejudice accusations and get on with defeating McCain. You, none of you, will defeat McCain if this does not stop and stop now!
For now I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and thinking that maybe you just were not involved or aware of the history, ugly as it is when it was a wonderful black leader who was the victim of a established leadership afraid of a little truth telling.
Hillary, Like Jesse has earned her right to speak. To be listed as a candidate and then to step aside as Obama is nominated and selected as our Nominee.
Posted by: Betty | Aug 16, 2008 11:58:30 PM
Kari, I was at that convention ane the chant was NNOT let Jerry speak it was let Jesse speak.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 17, 2008 12:48:40 AM
Betty --
You may be talking about 1988. I was talking about 1992, when "Let Jerry Speak!" was definitely a major outcry.
So on Wednesday night – after three days of intermittent chants of "Let Jerry speak!" from his scattered delegates – Brown was formally nominated. Wearing a large red AIDS ribbon, he stepped to the podium – well before the three major networks picked up their live coverage – and declared: "My name is Jerry and I'm here to speak." Over the next 20 minutes, he excoriated the political and corporate establishments, demanded "power for the powerless," and even mentioned his ailing father, former California Governor Pat Brown – but never once mentioned Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Aug 17, 2008 6:45:49 AM
This isn't about black and white. It's just about the oversized ego of a certain family.
I may be a Democrat, but that doesn't mean I have to be able to stomach the Clintons. Sixteen years ago I was fan. Now? I just want them to go away.
And for those who defend them, just look at how little the Clintons have done for Barack these last two months -- bupkus! You don't think Joe Scarborough would have welcomed Hillary if she asked to go on the air and then took some pointed shots at McCain for his offensive Moses/Paris ads? Of course Hillary would have been an opportunity to do that. But she had better things to do instead -- like tending to her own ambition.
Spare me with these people.
Posted by: Jo Ann Bowman | Aug 17, 2008 7:10:01 AM
Kari,
No I have not seen a schedule of the convention speakers but from the information I have read/heard there appears to be a lot of deference given to Clinton. I did say that she should stay home primarily because she does not appear to understand that she lost.
I also didn't support Clinton not because she is a woman but because she's driven by polls.
Becky-
Did Jesse have his delegates nominate him from the floor at the convention? And then given prime time speaking spot? I appreciate your perspective on this conversation. And thanks for your kind words on my former life as a State Rep.
Daniel,
I agree with the points you have made. Maybe that is where my frustration is coming from with this convention.
I went to the 2000 convention and was pretty amazed how "staged for TV" the whole event was. I'll skip Denver and all the made for TV antics and but will watch the Obama's speech from home.
Posted by: all of life is not simply black and white | Aug 17, 2008 7:59:25 AM
Jo Ann, for an obviously wily former politician, that was an unbelievably poorly-reasoned post. How is it you wrote such an incendiary article without conducting any research?
In case you haven't noticed, the race has tightened considerably. Obama is going to struggle to win states where Clinton has a huge and loyal following - PA, OH, WV, etc. Let's just hope Hillary and her devotees in those states aren't hearing commentary like yours.
Posted by: Moses Ross | Aug 17, 2008 8:20:50 AM
Jo Ann, as a national Clinton delegate repesenting voters in Oregon's 1st CD, I am insulted by your comments.
You have shown disrespect to tens of thousands of Hillary voters in my district by stating that their support of Senator Clinton should not be acknowledged at the convention, even though there is a historical precedent for nominations and votes for "loosing" candidates.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama already have moved past all this. Why haven't you, Jo Ann?
We are all Democrats, Jo Ann. We will all come together after the convention to support the Democratic Party nominee, and those Clinton supporters will show a hell of a lot more respect than you have shown us here.
Posted by: Jo Ann Bowman | Aug 17, 2008 9:26:43 AM
All of life...
Yes I have noticed the race has tighten. Why do you think that is? I think it reflects the realization that the choice is between a black man (yes I know he is mixed race but he is still a black man in america) and a white and has nothing to do with playing nice with Clinton.
You have the option to not live in a black and white world, I don't have that option.
Moses:
How have I insulted Hillary supporters? I don't recall commenting on people who supported Hillary rather I simply stated my views on why she does not deserve all the concessions that she feels she is entitled to.
I've always been a good democrat and have never crossed party lines. When the democrat is someone I can't vote for I simply don't vote in that race.
Some of my best friends are Hillary supporters and we have had many long debates over the primary season. My goal is not to renew old fights but I want to ensure that the rules don't changed for one candidate at the expense of the nominee.
Again, where is the disrespect for Hillary supporters?
Posted by: ? | Aug 17, 2008 9:33:32 AM
You have had many debates with friends over the primary season with Hillary supporters? Does that include the time when you endorsed Edwards?
Posted by: BadumBadum | Aug 17, 2008 9:37:20 AM
I agree with most of the comments criticizing Jo Ann's ridiculous post. Her brand of reactionary, black-and-white, 3rd grade analysis doesn't belong on Blue Oregon. Can we take a vote to remove her from "contributor" status? I know she's a former "State Rep." but can she be relegated to the regular reader/poster status with the rest of the crazies?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 17, 2008 9:40:02 AM
but from the information I have read/heard there appears to be a lot of deference given to Clinton.
Sounds to me like you're listening to the media hype, rather than the reality on the ground.
And the media hype around the "conflict" is being created by Republicans. For example, the infamous "PUMA PAC" supposedly created by disgruntled Hillaryites? Yeah, created by a McCain donor.
We should be dealing with facts here - not reacting to GOP-generated, media-hyped conflict stories.
That's why I'm focusing on the actual schedule and the actual history.
Jo Ann -- I appreciate very much your perspective on things; your focus on revealing racism where some of us may not have noticed; your willingness to hold progressives accountable. That's why I invited you to join us as a regular contributor. But bungling a post like this doesn't help with the whole credibility thing.
My goal is not to renew old fights but I want to ensure that the rules don't changed for one candidate at the expense of the nominee.
Once again, the rules are not being changed. Just about every single primary loser over the last 20 years (at least) has gotten to speak.
This whole post is based on a fallacy.
Posted by: Jo Ann Bowman | Aug 17, 2008 9:40:39 AM
? Sure! 18 months ago Edwards looked like a sure bet! I have had debates about Edwards as well.
Posted by: BadumBadum | Aug 17, 2008 9:42:03 AM
Oh and I'm dead serious about taking a vote to remove her. People (journalists, Republicans, etc.) look to Blue Oregon to get the Democratic perspective. Jo Ann's stuff is embarrassing and not a reflection of Democratic values. I know we're a big tent party but seriously, her stuff is embarrassing.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 17, 2008 9:45:07 AM
Of course normally the presidential primary winner was a white, male millionaire.
Just noticed this line in the original post. Actual facts:
- Bill Clinton. Not a millionaire.
- Mike Dukakis. Not a millionaire.
- Walter Mondale. Not a millionaire.
- Jimmy Carter. Not a millionaire.
- George McGovern. Not a millionaire.
- Hubert Humphrey. Not a millionaire.
Posted by: Matthew Sutton | Aug 17, 2008 9:46:54 AM
As Kari's first comment shows, I think Jo Ann's post overlooked the historical precedent for the runner up to speak. No harm done or intended obviously.
As one of the most ardent Obama supporters in Oregon, I am pleased that the spotlight will be on Hillary for a portion of the Convention. She deserves it. Without question, her campaign made history and broke down walls for women everywhere.
This was an extremely close primary battle and her supporters are a valued members of the Democratic Party.
All of us in Denver will be celebrating Hillary's candidacy with them and giving her the recognition she deserves.
This will not detract from Barack's nomination or his time in the spotlight. It will only build unity and underscore the grace and class of our nominee.
Posted by: Hank Williams | Aug 17, 2008 9:51:24 AM
"..the choice is between a black man (yes I know he is mixed race but he is still a black man in america) and a white and has nothing..."
It's between a black man and a "white" what?
Seriously, JoAnn, hating people because their skin is white is no better than vice versa.
Posted by: Becky | Aug 17, 2008 10:05:11 AM
Joanne, be assured there was every effort to place his name in formal nomination and yes moves were made from the floor. but you miss my point. This is about candidates who were serious primary contenders and had a message to deliver that all americans needed to hear.
I am sure you are NOT suggesting that Hillary as the 1ST SERIOUS woman to run for President should not be afforded the same oportunity that Jesse, the 1ST SERIOUS african american has had. Also, when Jesse came to the convention - prominent black leaders were appointed to the DNC to represent him as SUPER DELEGATES. Many of which hold those positons still today (because no one has the courage to remove their delegate status) and will be in Denver as Super Delegates. I think we should do the same for HilLary, give her special super delegates, they could all be women...not in my lifetime I am sure.
Goes to show you that it is OK to be a Sexist but NOT a Racist at the DNC. Neither should be OK and that should be our message! Bella Abzug where are you when we need you?
Posted by: Moses Ross | Aug 17, 2008 10:30:33 AM
Jo Ann, the title and content of your post clearly associates Senator Clinton being placed in nomination as "white privilege". I, and obviously others, read this that you feel Senator Clinton did not earn the privilege to have that honor, that it was given to her because she is white?!?
This is where I disagree and am insulted that it is even considered. Senator Clinton earned the honor when she garnered over 18 million votes nation wide as the first credible female presidential candidate. I earned the honor to represent Senator Clinton in the 1st CD because over 40% of the voters in the district voted for her over Senator Obama.
These voters will be represented at the convention through the roll call and through the nominating process. And afterwards, we will all get behind Senator Obama in the general election.
Posted by: Josh Kardon | Aug 17, 2008 10:49:18 AM
I have followed and admired Jo Ann for a long time, and I think we need to give her the benefit of the doubt. While I believe Jo Ann is very far off-base today, I for one welcome diversity and diverse points of view on BlueOregon. BlueOregon needs more, not less, diversity, and my "vote" (hope, really) is that we read more from Jo Ann, not less.
Jo Ann, I won't go into why I disagree so strongly with your conclusion about Hillary's convention role being a result of "white privilege." Others here, have pointed out much of what you overlooked, and I'm hardly an objective commenter. I do hope that, in time, you will choose to recognize Hillary's historic activism and commitment to producing racial equality, as well as Hillary's monumental achievement on behalf of all women and women -- like you -- who aspire to lead.
Anyway, you still have my vote.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Tim | Aug 16, 2008 4:37:18 PM
I sincerely hope this post is satire. Hiliary came very close to getting the nomination, she is a respected member of the US Senate for the Democrats, and he is also a former first lady. Any and all of those reasons are sufficient for her to speak at the convention. Why exclude her from speaking?
As for her name still being on the ballot, I also think it's a silly idea, but it is about giving sufficient recognition to the closeness of the campaign. This allows her supporters to vote once for her, and for her to officially decline and for her to turn and officially vote for Obama. Seems reasonable, though not really necessary. Hardly "white privilege" from my perspective.