Hillary at Wellesley
This morning, on the front page of the New York Times, there was an article – part of the on-going series called The Long Run which features in random rotation, aspects of a current candidate in the Primaries – entitled: Clinton’s Gradual Education on Issues of Race. I knew as soon as I saw that title that somethings was not right about it. I got that, you know, creepy feeling that yet another journalist was having a ‘bad spirit’ day and had decided to take it out on Hillary. I was most pleased to see that the article had not made the ‘Most emailed today’ list of articles. I scanned it just to confirm that it was, indeed, documenting every recorded incident of HRC’s ‘racial ignorance’ from birth, then I went on to things that mattered.
Then a friend wrote me, asking if I had seen it and expressing dismay about its existence. Then I went OFF:
The TITLE alone gives away this piss-ant of an attitude-ridden article…I mean, what great deep dark secret revelations do they think they’re presenting? This was my upbringing too. So-the-hell-what!! The 1992 Clinton campaign staff, probably their present staff (in the background, as they should be), their personal friends, and on and on demonstrate where she’s at, in the present, on ‘race’ and ‘diversity’ — damn — she’s WAY beyond these superficial divisions, she’s deep into the crap that undermines our having a sane and evolving society.
Now? I feel better. More relaxed. Lighter. I had a great afternoon and am having an excellent evening. My burden is lifted.
~ RANT ON ~

Thank you for posting! Yes, I think this is an example of how the media discourages Americans from looking at our individual and collective racism, sexism & classism (to name a few) by suggesting that those who have “come a long way” are somehow less reliable now, more likely to backslide. Show me the male candidate for president that has not had a “gradual education” which spans several decades (at least) on the issue of sexism.
By: Chivas Sandage on February 6, 2008
at 7:52 PM