The Semiotics of Angry White Women
|
|
| Also listed in: Evergreen Progressives |
The outburst of Harriet Christian that demeans Barak Obama's run for the Democratic nomination for President and that has played over and over again on YouTube, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5unWHvq9ysI) spawns some interesting thoughts. One, (and I am far from the first to think of this), it creates a mirror image on Hillary Clinton's side comparable to the Reverend Wright image on Obama's side - the Angry White Woman (" God damn the Democratic Party!") vis-à-vis the Angry Black Man ("God damn the United States!"). Clearly, both are passionate in their feelings, both use intemperate language, and both have become caricatures to be used by opponents of the supporters of the other.
Second, the emotions that she vented were clearly based on a frustration that is rooted in the sense of betrayal of the entitlement on the part of Hillary Clinton; that the nomination was being stolen from the better candidate by Obama "an inadequate black man" in the words of Ms. Christian, who would not even have been running were it not for the desire to stop Hillary. The overt racism is astonishing, especially from someone who described herself as a worker for civil rights. While the frustration is understandable, the view that sexism somehow trumps racism in America is stunning. (A separate debate on that subject is worth having.)
The recoil from these images also has a more subtle psychological message. Both Reverend Wright and Harriet Christian represent what skeptics and critics fear and believe is the face of the two candidates in the privacy of their own hearts. The critics of Barak Obama's links to Reverend Wright, and their condemnation for his slowness in distancing himself from the preacher, reflect a belief that, stripped of his political language and smooth talk, as a black man in America, Obama must hold the same beliefs.
The rant of Harriet Christian has a similar impact: that this must be what Hillary Clinton feels once all the stage management is removed and the raw feelings are allowed to emerge. That suspicion is fed further by the carryings on of her husband, who damaged Hillary's campaign immeasurably with his ranting that, though a bit more subdued, carried the same message of betrayed entitlement.
Nobody likes losing. But I doubt that Obama ever felt any sense of entitlement, any more than John Edwards or Chris Dodd. But Hillary and Bill Clinton feel like they have been rejected by those whom they believed to be their friends. Even the limited public visibility of the Clintons' reaction back when Governor Bill Richardson announced that he would back Obama (which I think was the turning point in the Obama campaign)revealed that sense of betrayal. And the image of Harriet Christian's outburst may well reveal the true feelings of the Clintons to their defeat.
Second, the emotions that she vented were clearly based on a frustration that is rooted in the sense of betrayal of the entitlement on the part of Hillary Clinton; that the nomination was being stolen from the better candidate by Obama "an inadequate black man" in the words of Ms. Christian, who would not even have been running were it not for the desire to stop Hillary. The overt racism is astonishing, especially from someone who described herself as a worker for civil rights. While the frustration is understandable, the view that sexism somehow trumps racism in America is stunning. (A separate debate on that subject is worth having.)
The recoil from these images also has a more subtle psychological message. Both Reverend Wright and Harriet Christian represent what skeptics and critics fear and believe is the face of the two candidates in the privacy of their own hearts. The critics of Barak Obama's links to Reverend Wright, and their condemnation for his slowness in distancing himself from the preacher, reflect a belief that, stripped of his political language and smooth talk, as a black man in America, Obama must hold the same beliefs.
The rant of Harriet Christian has a similar impact: that this must be what Hillary Clinton feels once all the stage management is removed and the raw feelings are allowed to emerge. That suspicion is fed further by the carryings on of her husband, who damaged Hillary's campaign immeasurably with his ranting that, though a bit more subdued, carried the same message of betrayed entitlement.
Nobody likes losing. But I doubt that Obama ever felt any sense of entitlement, any more than John Edwards or Chris Dodd. But Hillary and Bill Clinton feel like they have been rejected by those whom they believed to be their friends. Even the limited public visibility of the Clintons' reaction back when Governor Bill Richardson announced that he would back Obama (which I think was the turning point in the Obama campaign)revealed that sense of betrayal. And the image of Harriet Christian's outburst may well reveal the true feelings of the Clintons to their defeat.
I am convinced that there must be unified opposition to John McCain. The prospects of continuning the Bush programs and policies under his name are horrific.
The HRC camp should think deeply about that before packing their bags and walking away from the Democratic Party. Every community and State will have a long slate of candidates that need all of our support.
Pick a good Democratic candidate further down the ticket, if you must. But don't abandon the election and the nation over nomination campaign bitterness.
It is possible, however, that she is a republican mole. That is not possible with Rev Wright.
Sad, no?