Thursday, February 21, 2008
what about edith wilson?
I haven't said much about the Presidential campaign. After my justification for voting for Hillary Clinton in the Arizona primary, I've still been paying attention to but haven't talked much about the race. I stand behind my vote and really am getting more than a little tired of the deification of Obama on the part of his supporters. I sincerely apologize if that's how I came off regarding Howard Dean four years ago. I understand how the Obama supporters feel about their candidate, he just doesn't inspire me in the same way he does them. I feel a little sorry for them when they ultimately realize he's only human and has human weaknesses.
But that's not what this post is about. In listening to some of the coverage of tonight's debate in Texas, I'm struck once again by the talking heads lauding the historic nature of this election because either a black man or a white woman stands is supposedly the first person of their respective race and gender to possibly become President of the United States.
This is of course an insulting and ignorant assessment absent any substantive historical context. Remember the hot water Joe Biden got in last year when he gave Obama those backhanded compliments about how "well-spoken" he is and that, according to Biden, was why he was "viable". And to think, that guy's campaign never caught fire.
But this post is about women who have been close to being President. There was of course Carol Moseley Braun in 2004. And Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice President in 1984. And of course Pat Schroeder in the 1970's. There have been other women, of course, who have stood decent chances of becoming President (or at least a heartbeat away).
Hardly anybody mentions Edith Wilson, President Woodrow Wilson's second wife. When the President purportedly had a debilitating stroke during his second term, his wife is said to have essentially assumed the duties of the Presidency rather than allow her husband to leave or be removed from office. Ironically, the stroke struck about a year after President Wilson reluctantly changed his mind and decided to support the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. Of course, that amendment wasn't ratified until the year after his stroke.
So in future discussions about women and the presidency, let's also keep in mind that Edith Wilson had done the job almost a century before the media decided that Hillary Clinton is the first women eligible for the job.
But that's not what this post is about. In listening to some of the coverage of tonight's debate in Texas, I'm struck once again by the talking heads lauding the historic nature of this election because either a black man or a white woman stands is supposedly the first person of their respective race and gender to possibly become President of the United States.
This is of course an insulting and ignorant assessment absent any substantive historical context. Remember the hot water Joe Biden got in last year when he gave Obama those backhanded compliments about how "well-spoken" he is and that, according to Biden, was why he was "viable". And to think, that guy's campaign never caught fire.
But this post is about women who have been close to being President. There was of course Carol Moseley Braun in 2004. And Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice President in 1984. And of course Pat Schroeder in the 1970's. There have been other women, of course, who have stood decent chances of becoming President (or at least a heartbeat away).
Hardly anybody mentions Edith Wilson, President Woodrow Wilson's second wife. When the President purportedly had a debilitating stroke during his second term, his wife is said to have essentially assumed the duties of the Presidency rather than allow her husband to leave or be removed from office. Ironically, the stroke struck about a year after President Wilson reluctantly changed his mind and decided to support the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. Of course, that amendment wasn't ratified until the year after his stroke.
So in future discussions about women and the presidency, let's also keep in mind that Edith Wilson had done the job almost a century before the media decided that Hillary Clinton is the first women eligible for the job.
Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, history, women's rights
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
red herring
I've had this post brewing for some time, but only felt inspired to write it after watching some of the Logo/HRC debate and reading some of the coverage of it.
This starts with same-sex marriage. Those who know me or who have been faithful readers for a few years know that I don't think much of this issue. It's not a make or break issue for me in a candidate, and it's really not a very pressing issue to me in general, except in fighting back attempts to make same-sex marriage illegal because that's a dangerous slippery slope that could become a gateway to limiting other rights.
And I'm not at all saying that marriage is a basic right or a basic need. That would be silly. Basic needs are food, shelter and safety. Basic rights are those found in the Constitution and its amendments. Same-sex marriage should be legal, but it's not exactly life or death.
So this brings me to my point. Most of the Democratic candidates who participated in the Logo/HRC 'debate' said they did not support marriage equality and used the excuse that "the country just isn't ready yet" or "we're just not there yet" as justification.
Poppycock.
How can you know if you're not ready for something unless you try it and see? And why does 'the country' (code for heterosexual moderates) have to be ready for something that has absolutely no impact on their individual lives anyway?
If my yoga practice has taught me anything, it's that we are capable of doing so much that we might not have otherwise thought possible until we tried. Massachusetts has not fallen into the Atlantic, people aren't dying in the streets in Boston and Amherst and Waltham (shout out to my Brandeis reader!). How were Massachusett-ians(?) any more or less 'ready' for same-sex marriage than anyone else in this country?
It's not that 'we're not there yet' or that 'the country isn't ready'. There may be a lot of people, perhaps even a clear majority, of American voters who are still a little uncomfortable with marriage equality. But is it really fair to use their mild discomfort (and it really is mostly mild according to polling) as an easy out to restrict some rights from one group of citizens?
If you're personally uncomfortable with something, own up to it. Don't hide behind some amorphous nonsense excuse about how other people may or may not feel about the issue. And once you've done that, get over yourself. Seriously. Whatever happened to the greater good?
There were a lot of timid politicians who said that the country wasn't ready for women to vote prior to 1920, or that we just weren't there yet in 1963, a year before Congress passed and President Johnson signed sweeping Civil Rights reforms into law.
You know what? It turns out the United States populace was actually ready for those and other major advances. We just didn't know it till we tried it.
The U.S. democracy has always been a great experiment. There have been lots of rocky points along the way, especially at those times when the oppressed aggressively sought fairness and justice. But the Union endured, just as it will when some politicians with backbones finally grow a pair, pass sweeping pro-equality laws, and the country once again realizes that same-sex marriage, much like interracial marriage before it, is really no big deal.
And on that note, I'll also encourage you, my faithful reader, to try something - anything - you never thought you could do. Stepping out of your comfort zone can be a wonderfully freeing and enlightening experience.
And you don't even need to attend a yoga class with me to prove it.
Open to grace.
This starts with same-sex marriage. Those who know me or who have been faithful readers for a few years know that I don't think much of this issue. It's not a make or break issue for me in a candidate, and it's really not a very pressing issue to me in general, except in fighting back attempts to make same-sex marriage illegal because that's a dangerous slippery slope that could become a gateway to limiting other rights.
And I'm not at all saying that marriage is a basic right or a basic need. That would be silly. Basic needs are food, shelter and safety. Basic rights are those found in the Constitution and its amendments. Same-sex marriage should be legal, but it's not exactly life or death.
So this brings me to my point. Most of the Democratic candidates who participated in the Logo/HRC 'debate' said they did not support marriage equality and used the excuse that "the country just isn't ready yet" or "we're just not there yet" as justification.
Poppycock.
How can you know if you're not ready for something unless you try it and see? And why does 'the country' (code for heterosexual moderates) have to be ready for something that has absolutely no impact on their individual lives anyway?
If my yoga practice has taught me anything, it's that we are capable of doing so much that we might not have otherwise thought possible until we tried. Massachusetts has not fallen into the Atlantic, people aren't dying in the streets in Boston and Amherst and Waltham (shout out to my Brandeis reader!). How were Massachusett-ians(?) any more or less 'ready' for same-sex marriage than anyone else in this country?
It's not that 'we're not there yet' or that 'the country isn't ready'. There may be a lot of people, perhaps even a clear majority, of American voters who are still a little uncomfortable with marriage equality. But is it really fair to use their mild discomfort (and it really is mostly mild according to polling) as an easy out to restrict some rights from one group of citizens?
If you're personally uncomfortable with something, own up to it. Don't hide behind some amorphous nonsense excuse about how other people may or may not feel about the issue. And once you've done that, get over yourself. Seriously. Whatever happened to the greater good?
There were a lot of timid politicians who said that the country wasn't ready for women to vote prior to 1920, or that we just weren't there yet in 1963, a year before Congress passed and President Johnson signed sweeping Civil Rights reforms into law.
You know what? It turns out the United States populace was actually ready for those and other major advances. We just didn't know it till we tried it.
The U.S. democracy has always been a great experiment. There have been lots of rocky points along the way, especially at those times when the oppressed aggressively sought fairness and justice. But the Union endured, just as it will when some politicians with backbones finally grow a pair, pass sweeping pro-equality laws, and the country once again realizes that same-sex marriage, much like interracial marriage before it, is really no big deal.
And on that note, I'll also encourage you, my faithful reader, to try something - anything - you never thought you could do. Stepping out of your comfort zone can be a wonderfully freeing and enlightening experience.
And you don't even need to attend a yoga class with me to prove it.
Open to grace.
Labels: challenge, change, civil rights, equality, fear, history, human rights, LGBT, opening to grace, Pres-08, social justice, yoga
Sunday, November 12, 2006
vlog: possibility breeds hope
Update: Click here to go to the YouTube page with the video that refuses to embed here. Stupid Blogger Beta.
Labels: history, hope, Howard Zinn, vlog
