Dana Goldstein

Living History

These are the fields of Monticello, once tilled by Thomas Jefferson's slaves. I visited there last Memorial Day weekend. Today, via Matt Yglesias, I see Ben Smith is reporting that Paula Abeles -- a white Jefferson descendant who's been active in keeping black descendants out of Monticello family reunions -- has become a John McCain volunteer after initially support Hillary Clinton. I've long been fascinated by Jefferson and his family history, and it's worth expanding, I think, upon how deeply racist and out-of-the-mainstream folks like Abeles are.

Conclusive DNA evidence linking Jefferson or one of his brothers to the black Hemings line has existed since 1998. In 2000, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation concluded it was likely that Jefferson himself fathered all six of his slave Sally Hemings' children. The dates of their births correspond quite neatly to nine months after the rare times Jefferson and Hemings were simultaneously at the estate. And historical documents indicate, the foundation found, that "several people close to Thomas Jefferson or the Monticello community believed that he was the father of Sally Hemings' children."

If you visit Monticello today, you'll hear chilling, wrenching stories about the lives of the hundreds of enslaved people who lived there. Jefferson, although thought of in his own time and today as a "benevolent" slave-owner, did instruct his overseer to beat his slaves. Jefferson sold husbands away from wives and teenagers away from their parents. Jefferson publicly tortured and humiliated runaways.

Those Jefferson descendants who continue to reject their black brethren are facing off against both science and history, choosing to embrace an outdated and, quite literally, white-washed image of their scion. Hearing that Abeles supports McCain will only push more Clinton supporters -- the vast majority of whom are committed Democrats and fairly progressive -- into Obama's camp.

cross-posted at TAPPED

Clinton on Misogyny

Is it harder for a female candidate to get elected in America than an African American male, or just harder for Hillary Clinton to get elected than Barack Obama? Jury's out, but Clinton, in an interview with the Washington Post, chalks her probable loss up in some part to misogyny. Here's Hillary in her own words, speaking to Post reporter Lois Romano, who is very sympathetic to the candidate.

LR: Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign? HRC: I do not. I think this has been a positive, civil campaign. I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman than to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either. The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.

LR: Isn't that how it's always been, though?

HRC: Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal. You can go to places in the world where there are no racial distinctions except everyone is joined together in their oppression of women. The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world. If you look at the extremism and the fundamentalism, it is all about controlling women, at it's base. The idea that we would have a presidential campaign in which so much of what has occurred that has been very sexist would be just shrugged off I think is a very unfortunate commentary about the lack of seriousness that should be applied to any kind of discrimination or prejudice. I have spent my entire life trying to stand up for civil rights and women's rights and human rights and I abhor wherever it is discrimination is present.

Of course, the Clinton campaign's failure to organize in caucus states (and so on and so forth) was at least as influential as sexism in allowing the nomination to slip out of her hands. It's also frustrating that Clinton insists upon comparing sexism to racism instead of acknowledging that both continue to be major problems worldwide. But some of what she's saying here is quite important and, coming from the lips of a presidential candidate and U.S. Senator, almost unprecedented. To admit that sexism is at the core of religious fundamentalism and the ideology of terrorism is to begin to realize that feminism is a powerful solution -- not just to "women's issues," but to foreign policy problems, national security threats, and so much else. I think what we're hearing here is a candidate unbound, able to speak freely because she knows she's almost finished with the race.

cross-posted at TAPPED

Young Women Evaluate Candidates Based Upon Substance

I've admired Linda Hirshman's work in the past, but her recent Slate column accusing young female Obama supporters -- including TAP online contributor Courtney Martin -- of having "Mommy issues" is terribly reductionist. You can read Martin's response here, in which she thoughtfully points out that like men, women (even feminist women) are a diverse group who will never vote as a single bloc. But I really think the intergenerational divide between liberal women when it comes to these two Democratic candidates is rather simple to explain. Here are a few substantive explanations with which Hirshman and others who advance her argument should grapple:

1. Young, politically-engaged women are more likely to have been against the Iraq war since 2002 than older women are. And polls show that those young, single women who initially supported the war were among the first Americans to turn against it. Barack Obama has been consistent since the invasion in his opposition to war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton continues to refuse to apologize for her war authorization vote.

2. Generation Y is the most multicultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-racial demographic in American history. In Barack Obama, who is biracial and has written about his personal struggle with identity politics, many young voters see themselves -- or an idealized version of themselves.

3. Obama's campaign excites young activists in part because it's a campaign about organizing. Indeed, Obama's career began as an inner city community organizer, and his campaign today is offering a summer organizing fellowship.

4. There's no denying that Obama is the new, fresh face in this campaign, and that young people like that sort of thing. 'Nuff said.

In short, feminism is important to many young women who are sympathetic to Obama. Feministing, for example, a website for which the Obama-supporting Martin writes, also features a regular "Hillary Sexism Watch," which defends the Senator from misogynist attacks. Hirshman should realize that when a young woman votes for Obama, it isn't necessarily an anti-Hillary vote -- and certainly probably isn't an anti-woman, anti-feminist, anti-mom vote.

cross-posted at TAPPED 

The Political Wives' Club

As Spitzergate hit the airwaves last week, Dina Matos McGreevy, ex-wife of the "gay American" former New Jersey governor, Jim McGreevy, made the rounds of the cable news networks, empathizing with Silda Wall Spitzer. In a New York Times op-ed, she mused, "Who knows why powerful men conduct themselves this way?"

Well. Matos McGreevy may have knew more than she's been letting on. The Newark Star-Ledger reports:

A former aide to James E. McGreevey said today that he had three-way sexual trysts with the former governor and his wife before he took office, challenging Dina Matos McGreevey's assertion that she was naive about her husband's sexual exploits.

The aide, Theodore Pedersen, said he and the couple even had a nickname for the weekly romps, from 1999 to 2001, that typically began with dinner at T.G.I. Friday's and ended with a threesome at McGreevey's condo in Woodbridge.

There's a few ways to look at this revelation -- if it's true.  First, political wives are a much, much savvier lot than the way they present themselves to be, and savvier than the media generally give them credit them for. Who knows, for example, what Wall Spitzer knew or suspected about her husband's sexual habits? Of course, regular threesomes with Pedersen may not have led Matos McGreevy to the conclusion that her husband was carrying on a long-term romantic affair with a different man, Golan Cipel. People are into all kinds of stuff, after all, and sexuality and gender exist on a spectrum. But this bombshell (again, if it's true) does put a dent in her argument that she was caught completely unawares by his coming out.

cross-posted at TAPPED 

So What Do You Get for $5,500?

That was the flippant question asked yesterday by many news organizations as they covered the fallout from Spitzergate. And hey, I'll be the first to admit that I've been curious. Last night, the New York Times posted as near to an answer as we're likely to get: A profile, complete with pictures, of Ashley Alexandra Dupré, the 22-year old sometimes-prostitute who visited with the Governor at the Mayflower hotel last month. After reading the piece and following the Times' link to Dupré's MySpace page, I just felt sad. Far from the fantasy of a college-educated sex-fiend who chooses prostitution out of many career options, Dupré left North Carolina at the age of 17 to move to New York City, where she aspired to become an R&B singer. On her MySpace page, Dupré writes about surviving abuse, using drugs, and being homeless. In short, she hews far more closely to the typical profile of a woman who chooses prostitution than you'd assume from the price the Emperor's Club commanded on her behalf.

I don't have a larger point here about the benefits or risks of legalizing prostitution; I'd encourage you to read Scott on that score. Rather, I'm struck by the pedestrian -- yet heartbreaking -- quality of Dupré's personal history. And lest you think Dupré got rich off her travails, note that she told the Times she's so strapped for cash she's considering moving back home with her mom.

cross-posted at TAPPED 

McCain's Far Right Catholic Support

The media coverage of televangelist John Hagee's endorsement of John McCain in late February may have left some with the impression that McCain hadn't, until that point, received wide support from the religious right. In fact, right wing Catholic leaders had been flocking to the McCain campaign since the fall. That's why Hagee's derision of Catholicism is so problematic for McCain: Hagee alienates a key Republican social conservative constituency -- anti-abortion rights Catholics -- that McCain had already won over.

Over at RH Reality Check today, I look more closely at exactly who on the religious right supports McCain, and whether the Hagee controversy will hurt McCain's electoral success with Catholic voters. Here's an excerpt:

In South Carolina, the campaign trotted out Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn to call McCain "an unwavering voice in Congress for the rights of the unborn." A doctor himself, Coburn supports the death penalty for physicians who perform abortions. In January, McCain attracted endorsements from Cathy and Austin Ruse, a prominent couple in the Catholic anti-choice movement. Cathy is a former pro-life spokesperson for the United States' Congress of Catholic Bishops, and Austin is president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, which lobbies the United Nations in opposition to family planning and abortion services worldwide. "We believe that abortion is the greatest civil rights issue of our day," the Ruses said in their statement of support for McCain. (No word on how the Ruses feel about income inequality or housing and workplace discrimination.) Also this winter, Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio, a leader in the effort to ban so-called "partial-birth abortions," signed onto the McCain campaign.

With those endorsements, McCain had plenty of anti-choice credibility even before his ill-fated pas de deux with John Hagee. But in his rush to the Bush right, McCain will leave no stone unturned -- even if lurking underneath is the possibility of angering over 60 million American Catholics. Of course, McCain has never been a shoe-in for the Catholic vote; ironically, polls show that like most Americans, Catholics believe abortion should be generally legal. Just more evidence to support the fact that John McCain's views on reproductive health lie well outside of the mainstream.

Check out the whole thing.

Downfall

The implosion of Eliot Spitzer looks fated to become one of the more dramatic downfalls in American political history. It was Spitzer's reputation as a tough-as-nails, populist prosecutor of Wall Street misdeeds that attached to him what, with 20-20 hindsight, were totally outrageous expectations: First Jewish President. Savior of Democratic Populism. Tamer of Corporate America.

Almost as soon as he entered office, Spitzer's flaws were brought to light. New Yorkers have rolled their eyes through an unbecoming scandal in which he used aides to dig dirt on Joseph Bruno, the Republican Senate majority leader and, arguably, Albany's most powerful figure. Then, politically chastened, Spitzer proved weak-kneed on his own proposal to grant undocumented immigrants driver's licenses. This was the same proposal that so tripped up Hillary Clinton during fall debates.

The timing of this prostitution brouhaha isn't very helpful, as New York Democrats are hoping to take over the State Senate, which would finally allow some more progressive legislation to break through.

One last thought: When politicians are caught cheating, I wish they'd leave their wives in the green room while they address the press. You're in the dog house, and it should look that way. Those "stand by your man" visuals are tired and demeaning.

cross-posted at TAPPED

This Ad's Gotta Be Worth Something

In some corners of the YouTubes, Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are competing to be the next president of the United States. Don't call it crazy till you hear Gravel rap. Then, er, by all means, call it crazy.

Rudy and the 9/11 Tick

Did you ever play that game when you were a kid where you repeat a word, over and over and over, until it loses all meaning? Well, check out this video from the folks over at Talking Points Memo...

John Edwards and the Campus Vote

My alma mater's newspaper, the Brown Daily Herald, polled current student preferences in the presidential race. Here are the results:

Which of the current 2008 presidential candidates do you believe would make the best President of the United States?

Barack Obama: 37.5 percent
Hillary Clinton: 18.4 percent
John Edwards: 5.6 percent
Dennis Kucinich: 4.5 percent
Ron Paul: 3.1 percent
Mitt Romney: 2.7 percent
Bill Richardson: 2.6 percent
Joseph Biden: 2.4 percent
Rudy Giuliani: 1.8 percent
John McCain: 1 percent

The question is oddly phrased, but let's assume for simplicity's sake that the vast majority of people will vote for the candidate they believe will be the "best president."  What surprises me here is that John Edwards' meager support among youth at large -- 8.4 percent -- actually surpasses his support at Brown. The university is staunchly liberal and has an engaged student body much more plugged into politics than the average voter of any age. If Edwards' track record of putting forth bold and specific policy proposals could gain traction among any population, I might have guessed that Brown students would be listening.

But upon further reflection, it makes sense that Edwards trails so far behind Obama and Hillary at Brown. Identity politics hold powerful sway there, so many students are motivated by the historic opportunity to elect the nation's first black or female president. And although Edwards is the most out-spokenly progressive candidate on the labor issues that have inflamed the campus in years past (during controversies over the labor practices of manufacturers of university-branded apparel, as well as contract negotiations for campus library and food service workers), the majority of students tune into those problems only when they're in the local news. The excellent Brown Student Labor Alliance, while one of the most effective student groups on campus, had a very small regular membership during my time at the university.

Unions aren't an American institution that most young people spend a lot of time thinking about, and Brown students, who come from mostly upper middle class and affluent families, are particularly removed from working class issues. Edwards' populist appeal just isn't as resonant with them as Obama's hopeful talk of transcending difference and renewing American politics.