Here you go:
Thursday 26 June 2008
Gulf Coast Mission Trip
Here you go:
Wednesday 25 June 2008
Dennise is 40!!!
Musical credits:
David Wilcox: "Heart Shaped Medallion" from the CD, "Home Again"
Tommy Emmanuel: "Since We Met" from the CD, "Only"
Pierce Pettis: "You Are Family" from the CD, "Chase the Bufallo"
Political Ad Music: Ron Bobbitt, Piano Compositions
Dixie Chicks: "The Long Way" from the CD, "Taking the Long Away Around"
Indigo Girls: "Free In You" from the CD, "All That We Let In"
Also! Leave Dennise a comment below....
Tuesday 17 June 2008
Stone of Sisyphus
I wrote about this CD a couple of years ago when I found it on some Chicago-fan sites in bootleg version. In fact most, rabid Chicago fans have actually had a copy for years.
The legend of the CD is that Warner/Reprise, Chicago's label at the time, wanted them to continue to make and release the "ballads" that the band was getting known for in the early 90s. But the band had other ideas. They wanted a return to the edgier, horn-driven rock that so long defined this supergroup.
Subsequent information has revealed that what was also at stake were negotiations between the label and the group regarding the licensing of Chicago's entire back catalogue. The label's decision to not release the CD may have not just been over artistic reasons but also business retaliation when the talks didn't go the label's way. (Either way, it shows you the power of the big label, and everything that's wrong with the music business...).
Here's a story from CNN about today's release.
It's a very good story with quotes from the band and some very eager fans.
Here's a promotional video from Robert Lamm's YouTube channel, featuring the title track:
One of the very cool things about the new CD are the liner notes. There's a couple of pages of backstory to the CD and its tortured history.
The liner notes start with four pages called "The Lost Chicago Album." Here's a selection:
"In 'The Greatest Music Never Sold,' author Dan LeRoy calls Chicago XXII: Stone of Sisyphus "an authentic return to form" and bemoans the fact that one of America's most exciting and creative bands had been forced, for purely commercial reasons, to shelve such a daring, expressive set of songs....
The sessions found the musicians on fire, with a rekindled enthusiasm that had been all but lost as Chicago's identity was progressively eroded away by the frustration that comes with creative soul selling..."
Besides the great music, these liner notes are the best reason to own this CD. And, there are nice, extended quotes from a different band member about each individual song too. For fans like me who have enjoyed the bootleg for years, these notes provide a very nice reason to go ahead and buy the CD anyway.
For those of you who buy the CD, you'll be interested to know that Dawayne Bailey, one of Chicago's guitarists at the time, has a "Stone" page at his website that has lost of good info on the CD, including soundclips, lyrics, and pics. They lyrics page is an especially nice companion to the CD.
I must say I really like the CD. And, like many other fans, I cannot help but wonder what the trajectory of the band might have been had this edgier release been allowed into hands fifteen years ago. Not that they've been on a bad trajectory these past fifteen years. But there is some serious hit potential on this CD.
The title track, "Stone of Sisyphus," and the songs "Plaid" and "The Pull" are all serious rockers, with the power of the horns behind them. "Sleeping in the Middle of the Bed" was described yesterday by my daughter Maria (listening to the bootleg one more time...), as "kind of like a rap song, a rock song, and a jazz song..."
Yep, that's kind of what I thought too...very genre-bending stuff.
In fact, in the liner notes, Walter Parazaider says, "I think the only things we haven't covered are Dixieland and polkas, and give us long enough we'll probably do that too."
![Happy](http://www.ericfolkerth.com/rw_common/plugins/blog/smiley_smile.png)
One of my favorites on the CD is a ballad called "Bigger Than Elvis," and was written by Jason Scheff. Jason is Chicago's longtime bass player.
I've known Jason's brother, Darin, for some years now, as the owner of the company that hosts this website. (and this one...and this one...and soon the official Connections site too...) So, I've gotten to know both Scheff's a little, via video-chat now and then.
The cool historical note is that their Dad, Jerry Scheff, was Elvis' bass player for about a decade...one of the best known bass players in the business in his generation. (In fact, Darin was showing off one of Jerry's basses from the Elvis days, via video-chat sometime back...)
So, the point is, Jason wrote a really fine tribute to his Dad, and it made it on the album. The song is a fitting and touching father-son tribute. (Especially a few days after Father's Day, now that I think of it...) What I come to find out today, now that I'm looking at the liner notes, is that Jerry Scheff played on the song, without knowing it. Here's how Jason describes it in the liner notes:
"We brought him in to play on the song, but didn't tell him what it was about. We muted the vocals. And that Christmas he was over at my house, and I played him the finished song. He had headphones on, and I'll never forget it. He sobbed when he heard it."
Tell you what, I've always been admirers of the Scheffs. But this just puts it over the top. These are good folks.
(BTW, earlier when I said that Jason is Chicago's longtime bass player, I am sure some of you were thinking, "Isn't that guy's name Peter Cetera?"
Know what? Jason has now been with the band longer than Peter ever was!!! More than twenty years now.
Kinda gives you perspective, huh?)
The liner notes also go into depth about the fights with the record label, and point to several songs --"Plaid," and "The Show Must Go On" that are direct critiques of the music business culture.
Chicago's been on my mind a lot lately. We can now know what the money raised at Friday's Connection's show was.
Friday was our largest audience ever (possibly 500!) and our largest single offering from the "night-of-the-show" crowd. With some funds that came in over the weekend, we can now announce that we raised more than $6,000 for UMCOR....awesome.
Then, on Sunday, at the old Starplex, Connections Band had a family night, and tooks spouses and kids to see The Doobie Brothers and Chicago...one artist we love to perform, the other we're going to be learning very soon.
It was a great show...especially the final six songs, where both bands took the stage together and traded off on some of their best known stuff....it was awesome. And a great time to celebrate with our Connections family.
But, today's all about that mysterious CD.
From the song "Plaid":
"Some will say it's too late
So don't change the story
There's too much at stake to grow
Yesterday was so great
Just bask in the glory
Don't let your feelings show
And I say, "Oh Yeah"
Like a man with a condition, I wait for my heart to stop
They say, "Stay down,
Gotta plan hold that position.
You can't afford a flop."....
I'm not asking for permission
Are you ready for me to be me?
Just pass the ammunition
This prisoner's about to bust free from your chains"
You can get the CD here.
You can also get it at just about every music store anywhere.
However you get it, I recommend that you get it.
Because it's a little piece of modern music's history, coming alive today.
Sunday 15 June 2008
New Ways to Look at Fathers
I have always said that the untold story of women working full time is that fatherhood, of necessity, must also change. Far too often, however, when modern families are written up in the media, it's still the same old model that's assumed: a woman can work outside the home, but she's still in charge of everything at home too.
That's why I'm pleased to see this very long story in the New York Times today that points to a different, and still relatively new, model: When Mom and Dad Share it All
The story starts out by telling the tale of "Marc" and "Amy," two modern parents who made the decision to not live our traditional roles of fatherhood and motherhood, or even by the neo-traditional role where the modern working mom still shoulders most of the familial burden. As the story tells it:
"...they would create their own model, one in which they were parenting partners. Equals and peers. They would work equal hours, spend equal time with their children, take equal responsibility for their home. Neither would be the keeper of the mental to-do lists; neither of their careers would take precedence. Both would be equally likely to plan a birthday party or know that the car needs oil or miss work for a sick child or remember (without prompting) to stop at the store for diapers and milk. They understood that this would mean recalibrating their career ambitions, and probably their income, but what they gained, they believed, would be more valuable than what they lost."
Dennise and I have always tried our best to live this new way of co-parenting --dividing chores and responsibilities-- but it's hard work, and there are few role models. But, I'm pleased to see couples like us getting a little due. The story continues:
"There are Marcs and Amys scattered throughout the country, and the most interesting thing about them is that they are so very interesting. What they suggest, after all, is simple. Gender should not determine the division of labor at home. It’s a message consistent with nearly every major social trend of the past three decades — women entering the work force, equality between the sexes, the need for two incomes to pay the bills, even courts that favor shared custody after divorce. And it is what many would agree is fair, even ideal. Yet it is anything but the norm..."
“If you gave people a survey they would probably check all the answers about how things should be equal,” says Francine M. Deutsch, a psychology professor at Mount Holyoke and the author of “Halving It All: How Equally Shared Parenting Works.” But when they get to the part where “you ask them how things work for them day to day,” she says, “ideal does not match reality.”
Deutsch has labeled the ideal “equally shared parenting,” a term the Vachons have embraced. DeGroot prefers “shared care,” because “shared parenting” is used to describe custody arrangements in a divorce, and while “equal” would be nice, it is a bar that might be too high for some families to even try to clear. Whatever you call it, the fact that it has to have a name is a most eloquent statement of both the promise and the constraints facing families today.
“Why do we have to call it anything?” Amy asks.
Marc adds, “Why isn’t this just called parenting?"
Why, indeed.
Someday, it won't seem so strange. I am sure of it. But there are days when it still seems like a challenging, trailblazing, life.
On other matters related to being a father....
The other day, in my wrap-up of the Democratic Primary season, I mentioned an essay by Peggy Drexler, that cited a surprising study about which politicians actually support women's issues the most. She's now unpacked that one quote in complete essay titled: Looking for a Woman's Candidate? Check for Daughters.
Here's what she says:
"A study (done in 2006 and updated last year) sponsored by Yale University and the National Bureau of Economic Research and authored by Ebonya Washington showed that male legislators with daughters are more likely to support women's issues than those without them.
She came to that conclusion through an analysis of roll-call votes in which she compared votes with family composition. She used rankings by major women's groups on 20 women's issues, such as equal rights, women's safety, economic security, education, health and reproductive rights.
It is a political application that mirrors previous research that shows - just as fathers change daughters, daughters change dads.
The dependent, passively feminine daddy's little girls of the past have been replaced by a new and thoroughly re-designed model of young female - ambitious, educated, worldly and in need of nobody's protection.
Instead of preparing his daughter for the time-honored matrimonial hand-off, fathers today can - and are increasingly expected to - have a hand in raising powerful and independent women; women fully capable of making their way in a competitive world where the competitors don't always play nice.
More than most, legislators have a chance to shape that world.
As we wish them a happy father's day, let's also hope the elected fathers of daughters make the most of it."
Happy Father's Day, everyone.
Saturday 14 June 2008
"Oh this is sure stirring up some ghosts for me..."
"I been spellbound - falling in trances
I been spellbound - falling in trances
You give me shivers - chills and fever
I been spellbound - somewhere down the crazy river"
-- Robbie Robertson
Far more faithfully than either guns or religion, it seems to me that Americans cling to their sports bitterness. It's what first inspired Bob and Dan to dub me the "Bitter P1." And it's what inspires me to update a blog of almost two years ago today.
The update is inspired by is this story in the DMN: "Texas Rangers' Attendance is Down"
Two days later, Evan Grant offered analysis of the situation, and sets the stage for the debate:
"It is June. The Texas Rangers' overall record is probably slightly better than you thought it would be before the season. It is undoubtedly a lot better than you thought it would be on say April 15. Nolan Ryan is back with the team. Josh Hamilton is a Sports Illustrated cover boy AND the most exciting player in baseball.
And the Rangers are on a pace for less than two million fans.
Why is that?"
Grant offers five reason:
5. It's hot
4. Bad schedule (no great teams)
3. Poor ticket sales
2. History (eight years without a playoff appearance)
1. Lack of wins early in April/May
And all these may be true. And, someday, I'd like to hear a serious discussion about just how much the summer heat has hurt the Rangers over the years. Because my hunch is that the answer is "a lot." My hunch is that, with a retractable roof, some of the teams from our Ranger-past would have gotten much farther than they have.
But I must point out to Grant, and everyone else reading, that his top three reasons are really connected together as one huge "cause and effect."
I would submit to you that poor season tickets sales, a lack of wins, and a "history" of eight losing seasons, are all symptoms of a long-term, debilitating, disease that afflicts this team. Like Type 2 Diabetes, it doesn't kill you on day one. It doesn't even change your life that much. But year after year, the symptoms become more pronounced, certain conditions become irreversible, and eventually you lose the patient.
The Song Remains the Same
A few years back, I wrote a blog called "Why I Can't Afford to Love the Rangers." In fact, almost two years exactly. Nothing has fundamentally changed since then.
Well, that's not entirely true. The names have changed. The new, exciting players are now named "Bradley" and "Hamilton." But it's the same old story: Great hitting. No pitching.
Year after year after year...after year...after year...it's the SAME story.
Jeez, this is not rocket science. Attendance is down, season ticket sales are down, because the Rangers are genuinely losing fans. They are losing some of them forever. Heck, as I wrote two years ago, they've pretty much lost me.
When I wrote two years ago, Kevin Sherrington was the DMN staff writer, bemoaning the fact that Ranger fans were not falling in love with Michael Young.
The gist of his story then was: What does Young have to do for you to love him like you loved Pudge, Rusty, and Raffy?
The answer for me was: there nothing Young can do because it's not about him. It's about one, very simple problem, that the Rangers had then....that the Rangers had a decade before that...and that the Rangers have now:
PITCHING, PITCHING, PITCHING!!!!
Sorry for shouting.
It's just that we've been here before. The incredible bats. The amazing offense. Come-from-behind heroics. Young, exciting offensive and defensive players that, cruelly, offer hope to the weary fan.
We were here two years ago. We were here four years ago. We were here a DECADE ago.
It's the same damn story. Year after year after year.
So, nothing has changed and I still can't afford to love the Rangers. They've broken my heart for 30 years. They know what they have to do to make it better and they still haven't done it.
So, I'm no longer going to show up at the park. I broke my string of attending "Opening Day" games back in 2007. I have not been to a single game since I wrote that blog in July of 2006.
I know that many other fans will slam this decision as impatient or fair-weather.
But look...this SAME ISSUE has been THE issue for a DECADE (probably longer...). It's THE issue.
So, it seems to me that my reaction is not impatient. In fact, I would argue that to continue to go to support this team --knowing that the same issue is still THE issue-- makes me a masochist.
Insanity, as Einstein once said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The Rangers organization appears to be insane, and I will no longer help them if they will not help themselves. Haven't we learned, from Hamilton's story this year, that an addict must sometimes hit rock bottom before they get help? People who go to these games are simply enabling Tom Hicks.
The second claim --that it's being "fairweather" to stay away from games-- is also bogus.
Look, ultimately the only power a fan has is the power of the pocketbook. Sure, we can boo lustily at a game or two. But so what? The only thing that really gets an organization's attention is the almighty dollar.
So, Rangers Fans: Join me.
Stay home. Stay home until management finally gets the depth of this crisis. Stay home until management realize that this is why season ticket sales are off. Stay home because hitting management in the pocketbook is the only real leverage you have.
In spite of how very cool the Josh Hamilton story is, the whole organization is based on a kind of insanity that has not changed in decades.
And until it does, I still can't afford to love the Rangers.
So, Should We Believe Donaghy?
Some may recall that the whole "Bitter P1" thing came from some YouTube vids that I uploaded in the wake of the Mavs loss to the Heat two years ago.
I'm over it. Promise. Really not bitter about it any more. Although, it's a fascinating exercise in human behavior that just about once a month, somebody still stops by YouTube to post a ranting comment.
In the past few days, the hits have increase, both there and here on my blog. And I can't help but wonder if it's related to the Tim Donaghy story.
Donaghy, as you'll recall, is the incredibly crooked ref who's been busted for throwing, and betting on, NBA games.
Donaghy chose NBA Finals week, no doubt timed for maximum exposure/explosion, to come out with charges that refs routinely fix games and favor certain teams. There are now rumblings that other investigations of refs may be in the works, including investigations by the FBI.
Heck, even Ralph Nader is jumping on the bandwagon.
So, I don't know whether or not to believe Donaghy or not. But I do know this: the NBA's credibility on this issue is tattered. Guys like Mark Cuban look more sane all the time.
And the video of those fouls that got me called "bitter" are still out there for the world to see.
It didn't look good then. To some of us, it looks even worse now.
(BTW, in an erie bit of timing, the day Donaghy made his most recent charges about game-fixing was the day Eliot Asinof died. Who is Eliot Asinof, you ask? The guy who wrote the definitive book on America's most notorious game-fixing scandal, "Eight Men Out.")
Thursday 12 June 2008
Democratic Muslims and Football-playing Tongans
Texas has never been widely known as a hotbed of progressive thought. This, despite the fact that great thinkers like Barbara Jordan and Molly Ivins came from here. Ann Richards too. This, despite the fact that issues near and dear to the progressive-heart were finally nationally adjudicated in cases that originated here (Roe v. Wade....Lawrence v. Texas).
Anyway, the whole point of this "Things to Like About Texas" section is to give you a different perspective of all-things-Texas, and hopefully broaden your mind a little.
Like this item from the Texas Observer about the recent State Democratic Convention. As the Observer reminds us, it's normal for Democrats to be inclusive in their caucuses. Democratic gatherings, even in this state, are usually quite a menagerie of interest groups:
"You’ve got your Gun Owners Caucus and your Progressive Populist Caucus, Texas Stonewall Caucus and Motorcycle Caucus, Native American Caucus and Tejano Democrats Caucus. That’s the Democratic Party in all its messy glory - diverse interests trying to fit under a Big Tent."
But how about a Muslim caucus?
That's right. Right here in Texas:
"One of the more interesting active Dem organizations here is the Texas Muslim Democratic Caucus, the first of its kind in the nation, according to one of the organizers. The caucus started about four years ago and represents Muslim Ds across the state. It has at least 70 delegates attending the convention - 60 from Dallas alone as well as folks from Beaumont, San Antonio, Houston, and even unlikely locales like Marshall and East Bernard."
Muslims from Marshall...
I'm fascinated, but not surprised, to learn that the vast majority of these delegates are from DFW. That matches the increased Democratic activism in our area too, as I'm sure you all remember from the last election.
But a Muslim caucus?
Right here?
In Texas?
Gotta love it.
Those of you reading this from so-called progressive states....would you have thunk it?
![sidebarbarleft](http://www.ericfolkerth.com/wheneftalks/files/page9_blog_entry286_1.jpg)
Item numero-two-o for today concerns our First Lady, Laura Bush.
She was in Afghanistan recently, and she found herself doing a "review of the troops." These were not Afghani troops, but troops from New Zealand. And these troops have become known for something called "haka," A visually striking, very ancient, ceremonial dance from Polynesian culture, it's been brought forward into the current day by these very modern troops.
What many observers noted at the time was how non-responsive Laura Bush was in the face of this menancing-looking moment. In the face of these shirtless, spear-toting men, she hardly flinched. Here's how CBS correspondent, Mark Knoller, accompanying Laura Bush at the time, describes the scene:
"If there was a moment at which Mrs. Bush appeared in danger of her life, it was her visit to the military base in Bamiyan that is home to a contingent of forces from New Zealand.
They performed a “Haka” warrior's dance, in which they angrily chant, grunt, shake their fists, pound their chests, stick out there tongues and make threatening advances. One soldier approached Mrs. Bush wielding a spear."
Have a look at the actual video footage here:
Later, a reporter commented on her relatively non-plussed reaction to this presentation, and her response was something like:
"Oh yeah....we've got that in Texas too."
Actually, the exact quote was:
"I thought that was really great....I actually know about the haka because there's one football team in Texas that won state last year that happens to have a lot of Tongans ... in that area of Dallas-Fort Worth, and they do the haka."
Turns out, this is absolutely true.
Not too far from here, on the outskirts of Fort Worth, some 4,000 native Tongans have all settled in Euless. Twenty years ago, Euless was a relatively provincial little town. Today, it's bustling suburb with, of all things, a thriving Polynesian subculture.
A local high school football team, the Euless Trinity Trojans, won their division in high school football last year. And one of the things the Trinity Trojans have become known for is a rousing, pre-game version of the Haka.
No kidding. Have a look:
This is why Laura Bush was able to say: "If I didn't already know about it and hadn't already seen this football team on television do this, I might have been really surprised by it".
Now, before I come back around to why this is something fun to like about Texas, stop for moment and soak in the globalistic, intercultural nature of this moment.
First off, recall that the islands of Tonga and New Zealand are some 1,300 nautical miles a part.
So, the first fascinating cultural learning is that the "haka" made it across the vast oceans separating various Polynesian islands. (Apparently spread through sports teams)
Knowing that, just soak up this cultural stew:
Troops from New Zealand end up in Afghanistan?
A First Lady from Texas ends up knowing their cultural tradition?
Because 4,000 Tongans end up in Texas?
And a high school football team ends up celebrating an ancient Polynesian dance?
God love us all.
Ain't it fun?
And regardless of what you think about Laura Bush or Texas High School football, you have to admit that it's fun to see Tongan culture, celebrated in a Fort Worth, Texas suburb.
And regardless of what you think of Democrats, you have to admit it's kind of fun to see a Muslim Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party be one of the first of its kind.
And if you can smile at both these things?
Then you've got two more things to like about Texas.
Thursday 5 June 2008
What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been
It's finally over.
Barack Obama has claimed the position of presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton has now confirmed she'll concede, belatedly, on Saturday.
Those of you who read some of my thoughts from back during my blog "vacation" (January-March) will know that I've been absolutely sure of this outcome for months. Hard as it is for Hillary fans to hear, this outcome has been a virtual certainty since before the Texas/Ohio primaries, and all-but-assured in the immediate aftermath of that March 4th vote.
How can I say this? Just remember: In order to re-take the lead, she needed to win both of those states by 58 percent or better. She didn't. So, by the time Pennsylvania rolled around, she need 65 percent, just to retake the lead. She didn't do that either. By the time Indiana/North Carolina rolled around, that number was well into the 70s, and you know how that turned out. And just before voting concluded last week, it was approaching 90 percent.
The only math that ultimately mattered, delegate math, had been very much against her for months. (Thank you, Chuck Todd) Those who were paying attention to the facts of it knew this. Those who were only paying attention to the spin thought there was still a chance.
Instead of writing a ton of my own thoughts, I'd thought I'd share some of the best of things I've been reading around the Netroots world.
Actually, almost all these quotes come from HuffPo posts over the past few weeks.
First, a little context....
It Was REALLY Over Last Saturday (But Maybe Not How You Think...)
That was the day of the DNC Rules Committee meeting about Michigan and Florida. And you might think I am referring to the delegate allocation, suggesting that Barack Obama "won" an unfair delegate allocation. In fact, that's not the case. Actually, Obama didn't get his own "hard line" position on delegates. What was approved, in the case of both states, were the proposals the state parties put forward.
In other words, the message sent by the DNC was "yes, we're still punishing you guys, but we're also trying to signal to you that you matter more than the plans put forth by either campaign."
In a strange way, that's a win for Obama because it signaled to all of usthat the DNC was not in the pocket of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
There is evidence of this...
Donna Brazile, no mincer of words that day, has revealed that Obama had the votes to force a 50-50 split of delegates in Michigan. To review: Clinton wanted 74 delegates for her...the Michigan state party wanted a 69-59 split between both candidates...Obama's "hard line" position was that there should be a 50-50 split.
Brazile reveals that Obama had the votes to enforce his "hard line" position, if he had wanted to. It would not have passed by as wide a margin as the plan that was ultimately approved, it would have really ticked off the State Party (and also Clinton and her supporters). But he could have done it.
And yet, he didn't.
I just point this out as yet another example of his graciousness and political savvy. He clearly saw it was better to signal unity to the party and peace with Clinton.
But on that day, it wasn't about who got how many delegates. It was about who didn't get their way (Clinton), who had the power to get their way (Obama) and who he ultimately listened to (the States).
So, What Happened to Hillary?
Let's remember what an incredible lead she had going into this thing. She had 20-30 point leads in the polls last winter. She had the Clinton name, arguably the most powerful name in Democratic politics since Roosevelt. She and Bill had been the de facto leaders of the Democratic Party for sixteen years. (With all respect to All Gore and John Kerry...)
In short, she had everything going for her. But, she didn't count on Obama and his own charisma and strategy, and she often underestimated her own weaknesses.
The best quick-and-dirty assessment I've seen of all of this was on the Today Show this week:
They conclude it was:
1) Strategy: It was NOT over on February 5th. She got stunned by his fundraising and 50-state strategy.
2) They got the Message Wrong: It WAS about change
3) They Underestimated "Clinton Fatigue": They REALLY, underestimated it.
4) Bill and Hillary's Own "Gaffes": Bosnia, Jesse Jackson, "hard working white voters"
5) Staying at the Party Too Long: It's been over since February, and many folks knew it.
I can't sum it up better than that.
Was it Sexism?
Erica Jong sure seems to think so. In an essay filled with over-the-top rhetoric ("It feels like Joan of Arc burning at the stake. You can smell the burning flesh") she declares that this campaign proves sexism is not dead:
"It's not sexism -- it's her" seems to have replaced, "I'm not a feminist, but" in our national lexicon. This is not to imply that Hillary Clinton is faultless -- far from it. But it's clear that the faults we tolerate and even overlook in men, we see as glaring in women. The problem with sexism is that it's so damned invisible."
But what if it really IS that folks were saying "it's her, not that she's a woman?"
That's what Peggy Drexler, also a staunch feminists (why must feminists always be "staunch?") says in an essay called "Don't Vote Chromosomes: The First Woman Must be the Right Woman."
As more and more "women of a certain age" told her Clinton needed to stay in the race because she was the last chance for a woman president in their lifetime, Wexler started saying, "Whaah?"
"Don't get me wrong. After a combined 16 years of intern abuse, lying to Congress, bullying, and macho posturing, I would love to see a woman's imprint on the Oval Office. But not to score one for our side. That makes as much sense as choosing Pepsi over Coke because Pepsi is run by a female."
Wexler points out that women's leadership styles run the gamut, and often exhibit "a more even-handed willingness to form consensus and consider opinions counter to our own."
But, when it comes to Hillary Clinton, she just didn't see it:
"Leadership style? I see in Hillary the same calculating, "bring em on" swagger of the last eight years: Dick Cheney - only better accessorized.
With Hillary we're talking about a woman who added assassination to possibilities of the early summer political season; who threatened to "obliterate" Iran; who declared herself the candidate of "hard working Americans - white Americans."
As for her concern for women's issues, Hillary has made promises on choice, reproductive services, expanded women's health care and pay parity. Where in her Senate career do we see any serious tenure-defining effort to protect or achieve any of that?
In fact, Hillary is not nearly as progressive as some might hope. She supported the Defense of Marriage Act, she co-sponsored a flag burning amendment, she voted to send our sons and daughters into the meat grinder of an unnecessary war. And with close to 70 percent of women in most polls favoring stricter gun control laws, what are we to make of her snuggling up to the NRA with tales of her childhood shooting lessons?"
Ouch.
See, there is a point we can't miss here. Maybe for many voters it really *was* about her being...her...a human being named Clinton, and not about her being a woman.
BTW, buried in this essay is a little nugget I dearly love:
"And I also like the idea of voting for a woman who truly cares about women's' issues. Without that, I'm not sure why women should get all that excited. In fact, a Yale study looked at voting records and found that legislators most likely to favor women's issues are men - with daughters."
So, what if it had to do, for many people, with "Clinton fatigue?"
What if many of us found it hard to imagine 28-years of presidential rule by two American families?
(it's kind of creepy when you put it like that, isn't it?)
What if many of us feel we used up all the water in our "defend the Clinton's" aquifer back in the 1990s?
I think, far more than sexism, these were the major factors.
And this points me to...
What Obama's Victory Means
See, the other side of Hillary's loss is Obama's win. Obama defeated the biggest name is Democratic politics for the last 50 years.
Late in the campaign, people kept asking "Why can't he win these big states?!!"
The question I always hoped they'd ask is, "Why, with her name, did so many of these races go from 20-30 point leads, to wins by ten points or less?
The answer is, I believe, because many people really like what they see in Barack Obama.
They wanted "change." But they also wanted idealism.
Gary Hart sees this nomination as a victory of "idealism" over "pragmatism":
"Though most people who start out as young idealists become more pragmatic with the weight of years, some of us do not. Some of us cling to the hope that America can do better, that public service can be noble, that equality and justice are achievable. We don't want to settle for past policy frameworks or for half measures. We would prefer to set a higher standard and to challenge the political and social systems to struggle upward. These feelings are not voluntary. They are part of one's very character.
I hope to live to see the first woman president. But I also hope she will be an idealist, not only a gender pioneer but a bold, brave, and innovative leader who is not part of a flawed Washington system. I want America to send a powerful signal to a watching world that we have now taken a giant step into the global culture by electing an African-American. But my hope and dream also is, and has been since the days of John and Robert Kennedy, that this president will call us to a nobler mission and a higher goal, that he will remind us always of our Constitutional principles and ideals, that he will place us back on our historic path to the establishment of a more perfect union and a principled republic."
As an observation, I also believe this is what leads some to oppose Obama. Because they have seen the ruin that has come to some of our idealists in the past century, and they either don't want that for Obama. Or they don't want to pain of losing an idealist again, should something happen to him or his candidacy.
But, in the end, I think Hart is right: a part of Obama's win is a victory of idealism over pragmatism. A politician must always have both as a part of their character. The question, it seems to me, is which one a politician "leads" with. Voters, for now, seem to want a politician who leads with idealism.
But beyond this, but perhaps related to it, there are generational differences at play here. It's been sixteen years since the young, vibrant couple known as "Bill and Hillary" rocketed to the scene. That's several lifetimes, politically, and they are not so young any more. In fact, more time has now elapsed between 1992 and now, than between their ascendancy that year and the beginning of the "Reagan Revolution!"
So, one of the other key concepts at play here is generational change.
And for this, I point you to this last essay by John Zogby, titled "The End of Boomerism as We Know It."
"The Clintons are prototypical Baby Boomers -- committed to ideals of peace and justice but overwhelmed with themselves. They (we, because I was born in 1948) are consumed with being the center of attention, the bride and groom at every wedding, so much so, that the ends don't simply justify the means, they are one and the same. Getting elected is the game, the final goal, the definition of self-worth. In his recent book, former White House spokesman Scott McClellan decried the mentality of "the permanent campaign" that he said permeated the White House of George W. Bush (the other Boomer president), which in some respects mirrors the Clinton behavior.
Sad to say, Bill Clinton became best known for the hallmarks of Boomerism -- self-centeredness and permanent adolescence -- as exhibited by the Lewinsky affair and all the other, lesser controversies and scandals."
He goes on to argue that those who believed George Bush was the antidote to this failed to realize that he was also a Boomer with similar flaws.
Zogby concludes:
"After 16 years, Americans have finally declared, state by state, caucus by caucus, primary by primary, that they have had enough of the Boomer generation in the White House.
In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton is smart, charming -- and the wrong person for the times. Voters have moved beyond Boomerism. Now, Americans will choose between an older version of duty, honor, glory, and a return to the American Century vs. a new vision of global pluralism, diversity, change, and youthful vigor.
Is Boomer Power gone forever? It is impossible right now to say one way or the other, but one thing we do know is that it has, at least, suffered a serious setback."
I think this is probably right.
I am a Baby Boomer by about three years. (Depending upon when you officially end the boom...) Barack Obama is a year older than me.
Those of us on the tail end of the "boom" have always felt an unease around our older Boomer brothers and sisters. On the one hand, there is much to be admired in them. On the other, their self-absorbed nature has always bothered us.
The Clintons are the classic examples of this older generation of Boomers. The Obamas are the epitome of the younger Boomers.
While older Boomers could look back and straddle the divide between them and the "Greatest Generation" (read: McCain) we younger Boomers have always been as equally comfortable around "Busters" (I married one) and even "Millenials." (The young adult children of many of those older Boomers!)
Ironically, I believe the Clintons and their political generation, young and vibrant as they were in 1992, failed to realize just how much generational change is at work in this election. To quote The Who, the "new boss" has become "same as the old boss." And that "same old boss" is now the Clintons.
For younger voters, and even for people like me, Barack and Michelle Obama remind us more of the Bill and Hillary Clinton of 1992 than do the the Bill and Hillary of 2008!
The times? They are always a-changin'
And, whatever happens this November, it's clear this election is now about change.
Should be fun.