Attack Of The Thwarted Entitled

The Democratic convention is playing beautifully well in the overseas media: Michelle Obama played a blinder, as is her wont (shame she’s not standing for something) and Hillary Clinton made opening speech of Campaign 2012 last night, to a sea of Obama/Unity placards.

Every Hillary supporting woman delegate interviewed by the BBC afterwards – most of them black, if I remember rightly, though I stand to be corrected without the video to hand; there may have been one white one – harped on, interminably on-message, on the theme of party unity. All was love and light and happy happy happy, with barely a dissenting voice to be heard.

Convention organisers and message managers in Denver can pat themselves on the back that they’ve managed to keep conflict so discreetly under wraps (so far; there are a couple of days to go still).

But what will really count is what happens in November (always supposing the election’s not completely Diebolded). Former pro-Hillary, now pro-Obama delegates can spout unity to the cameras in Denver as much as they like, but when it comes to X’s on ballots they’ll go with their gut instinct and their gut instinct as racist as hell. For ‘inexperienced’, read ‘black’:

Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Lisa Sisinni: Why I, a Clinton supporter, will vote for John McCain

Obama is inexperienced, fluffy and arrogant. I can’t back that.

Even though they managed by dint of much screeching and waving of rattles to have the Democrats put a wise old greyhair, a Hillary proxy, in charge of the hotheaded young black man, Hillary’s fans in the entitlement generation still aren’t satisfied and are threatening to throw their toys out of the playpen entirely, all the apparent convention unity notwithstanding – they’re not just abstaining, or passively supporting an independent, but actively campaigning against Obama and their own former party and in favour of McCain.

CNN:

66 percent of Clinton supporters — registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee — are now backing Obama. That’s down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they’ll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June.

And nowhere was that statistic more prevalent than at the RNC-sponsored happy hour for Hillary.

Clinton supporters-turned-McCain converts at the event were not just angry at Obama’s campaign; they’re furious with the Democratic Party’s nomination process this year.

“The DNC really pushed [Barack Obama] on us. Now they’ve left us with two choices: somebody who has no substance or a Republican,” said Jessi Cleaver, 35, of New York. “And these are terrible choices, and they worked hard to select this candidate. … We’re watching the DNC pick this candidate for us.”

Aww, diddums. Did they really think Hillary, wife of a president, mother of a future president, was the spontaneous choice of the toiling masses?

But why are these supposed feminists being so destructive? Do they think they have to burn down the political village to save the feminism, or something?

It’s as plain as a pikestaff to the average outside observer why they are doing this – it’s the colour thing, stupid. They’re racists, for all their feminist posturing, and their gut instinct says ‘don’t vote for the black guy’. Yes, they want change – but they want change for them and women just like them, change only on their terms – all others need not apply. Understandably many progressives find this political dog-in-the-mangerism utterly infuriating

I’m not American myself, so I’ll pass over to an American, Tim Wise of Lip Magazine, who puts it much more pithily than I ever could:

Your Whiteness is Showing:
An Open Letter to Certain White Women
Who are Threatening to Withhold Support From Barack Obama in November

[…]

Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman. So don’t kid yourself. If you wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman, you wouldn’t need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby producing the same likely result–a defeat for Obama. You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she’s progressive, and she’s a feminist. But that isn’t your threat is it? No. You’re not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject not only the black man who you feel stole Clinton’s birthright, but even the black woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be…?

[…]

See, black folks would have sucked it up, like they’ve had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman–hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so–but you won’t support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?

Your whiteness is showing.

Well, quite. Get over it already.

The irony is the question of race really is a surface issue for domestic consumption only: Obama’s politics are in essence the same as Hillary’s, at least in foreign policy – the Democratic platform calls for more neoliberalism, more expansionism, just as much overseas meddling as ever. This is is no way good for women worldwide.

The important choice here isn’t between race or gender at all. The world’s in one of the most politically precarious, nuclear-fuelled international situations in recent history. Identity politics be damned – it’s now a choice between having a president with a modicum of common sense or a psychologically unstable, hair-trigger-tempered nutjob with his finger on the big red button. Choose the wrong one, we could all be blown to kingdom come.

You’d think even entitled white American women would get that.

(Hattip to Donna)

The Audacity of More Of The Same

So much for the netroots and the go-ahead, modernist Obama presidency.

CNet’s Declan McCullagh has taken a look at Obama’s new BFF Joe Biden’s voting record on matters digital, and it’s not what you’d call enlightened.

An excerpt:

On privacy, Biden’s record is hardly stellar. In the 1990s, Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and introduced a bill called the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act, which the EFF says he was “persuaded” to do by the FBI. A second Biden bill was called the Violent Crime Control Act. Both were staunchly anti-encryption, with this identical language:

It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law.

Translated, that means turn over your encryption keys. The book Electronic Privacy Papers describes Biden’s bill as representing the FBI’s visible effort to restrict encryption technology, which was taking place in concert with the National Security Agency’s parallel, but less visible efforts. (Biden was no foe of the NSA. He once described now-retired NSA director Bobby Ray Inman as the “single most competent man in the government.”)

On technology Biden is firmly in the corporate camp. In the 1990s he supported the deregulation of the telecommunications industry – cheers for that – and currently he’s right up the the arse of the recording and media industries in championing the prosecution of downloaders.

nobody in Washington was surprised when Biden was one of only four U.S. senators invited to a champagne reception in celebration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hosted by the MPAA’s Jack Valenti, the RIAA, and the Business Software Alliance. (Photos are here.)

The prospective veep is company guy personified when it comes to online civil liberties, in stark contrast to his running mate’s supposed embrace of the netroots. How the Democrats will square that circle remains to be seen, but if their candidate had to choose between Viacom and the EFF I somehow doubt the EFF would win. Viacom and friends have bigger PACs.

But it’s not just technology on which he harks back to the last century.

Obama certainly didn’t pick him to get the youth vote; Biden doesn’t do modern or nuance on drug policy either. He’s declared war on party-goers and minor intoxicant users as sponsor of the RAVE Act, while at the same time bolstering drug crime and corruption by his creation of the office of Drugs Czar in the nineties and of the massive legal/security bureaucracy that supports it and profits from it.

He’s also a cradle Catholic who while nominally pro-choice and liberal (lookit that 100% NARAL rating!) nevertheless voted strongly for the partial-birth abortion ban, and for abstinence-only education.

Biden attended Catholic school, considered becoming a priest, attends a parish in Wilmington, Delaware, met with Pope John Paul II four times and attended his funeral.

Blimey, they really are going for the working-class antedeluvian white guy, get off my lawn vote, aren’t they?

Add to all this the fact that this is the man with vaunted foreign policy experience who yet was also a sponsors of NATO expansion legislation that kicked off the current troubles with Georgia. Well played! More proof that this is not a man not really in tune with the modern world or 21st century politics. He’s still fighting the bloody Cold War.

I suppose we should be glad that he is at least absolutely, positively against torture. Plus he’s not Cheney.

These days that seems to be qualification enough for the White House.

Oh Well, That’s All Right, Then.

McCain makes haste to show he’s still just an ordinary bloated plutocrat American, despite not knowing exactly how many houses he owns – spokesperson Brian Rogers, irate that his septuagenarian hero may have been dreadfully misrepresented as an overprivileged, forgetful old man:

“The reality is they have some investment properties and stuff. It’s not as if he lives in ten houses. That’s just not the case,” Rogers said. “The reality is they have four that actually could be considered houses they could use.”