I just got an email from my parents, written by my mother. The email itself was short and deeply gratifying for me personally. But to understand it, it's imperative to have the context - of my life, of my parents, and of our current political situation. All of these are intertwined and seek to explain where I come from and why who is nominated matters so greatly to me.
I'll dive in over the fold. I'm going to caveat - I can't do this without being critical of one Democratic candidate specifically. I will endeavor to be as civil as possible, but the criticism can't be avoided - it is part and parcel of the email and, frankly, of me.
So if you're interested AND prepared, I'll continue.
The Backstory
So a few things about me - all of which has come out in comments and interactions in my now three years at Daily Kos. First, I'm 40. I'm female. I live in suburban Washington DC. I have a degree in Economics. I have a very good job. I have a nice home in a great neighborhood. I can't complain about my own personal circumstances, believe me.
My parents are in their mid-60s. My Dad hails from Southern California. He is the oldest of four children and was raised Catholic, but to say that he's fallen away from the church would be an understatement - in my entire life I have not known him to embrace the faith in which he was raised. He went to college in California, graduated, and moved to the DC area after accepting a position with the US Federal government. He spent his entire career there - working hard, giving a shit about his service, and earning the respect of subordinates and superiors alike.
My mother was a military kid. She was also the oldest of four children and they moved around a lot as a result of my Grandfather's Air Force Officer's life. She was raised in a church-going, Sunday-school-attending Protestant household. She fell away from the church long before I became aware of religion - I would characterize her as a borderline atheist. She graduated from high school in suburban Maryland in the early 1960s and stayed in the DC Metro area until 2000. She married right out of high school - not to my Dad, but to her first husband. She went to college on a part-time basis but never finished. She had to work and took a job with the US Federal Government in the mid-1960s.
My Dad worked his entire career as a civil servant. On the strength of his work ethic and managerial acumen, he rose steadily as the years progressed. My mom was a different story. Lacking a college education, she answered an ad for a sales position that strongly encouraged women and minorities to apply (ca. 1971, during the EEO push). The company was a small technology storage company at the time. Over the next decade, the company would rise to Fortune 50 status and she would rise to head up one of the largest revenue divisions in the company. From 1981 forward she was always a VP for strong technology companies and she was VERY successful.
So that's a really high-level backgrounder on my parents. Both are successful. Both are self-made. Both come from working middle-class families. My Dad comes from lifelong California Democrats. My Grandfather (who's a GREAT guy and still living independently at 86 years young) to this day votes Democratic and shakes his head at the damage of Republican administrations, particularly the current regime. My mother's childhood household was different. It was populated with avowed Republicans. My Grandfather voted Republican up to his passing in 1994 and my Grandmother voted Republican in every election until her passing this past September. All three of my mother's brothers are Republicans to varying degrees (rabid to moderate). My mother turned out as a dedicated, card-carrying liberal. She's a feminist. An ERA-er. A pro-Roe-er. So is my Dad.
For the sake of not lengthening what is already looking to be a lengthy diary, I'll dive right into the political upbringing I had. First, we always talked politics in our house. Always. My parents were always knowledgeable about issues and candidates and had well-informed opinions about what they did or didn't like about a candidate or a politician already in office.
For all that both of my parents fell away from otherwise religious upbringings, it's a quote from the Bible that really encapsulates the way I was raised and values that they instilled in me:
Am I my brother's keeper?
Genesis 4:9
In our house, the answer was simple: Yes. You are your brother's keeper. I had a LOT of advantages. Both of my parents were successful. They used their financial success to give me the things they hadn't had when they were growing up. I went to Hawaii multiple times on vacation. I went to Napa and toured the wine country and the Sierra Nevadas. I went to Europe. I went to an all-girl's boarding school that was academically intense. I could have chosen any college I wanted (financially speaking). I had a big home with a pool in the backyard and all the things that you would associate with being raised in a household with two excellent incomes.
But they were serious with me. Serious that I should understand that I would have to earn my own "things" and serious that I should understand that all of my advantages were gifts. Nothing was more formative in my education than an awareness that I was VERY lucky, and that there were many, many people who were not nearly so lucky as I. Both of my parents instilled in me a sense of caring, and an obligation to understand and be empathetic to those who weren't as fortunate. They set me on a lifelong path of GIVING A SHIT - I can't say it more succinctly than that - and their politics were and are absolutely driven by a belief that government owes a duty to its citizens to help them when they need it and care most for the "least" among us. It's a gift, really. And I have embraced it and I cherish it.
The Email
So it's important to note that I talk to my parents, and particularly my Mom, regularly. If not every day, at least five times a week. We cover a LOT of ground on the phone. I went into the same industry as my mother - we know many of the same people and she knows the business that I am in, so we cover a lot on that subject. We talk a lot about the band I sing in and about other family members (her brothers, my stepson and husband, etc.). And lately, we talk A LOT about politics and the race. All three of us are up on the races and the policies and we all have opinions about them. We talk about it on the phone constantly. "Did you see what X said in the debate?" "Did you see how Y is doing in the polls?" "Can you believe that Z (Republican) is such a ridiculous douchebag?" Stuff like that.
We spent our talk time on issues and events and happenings. It's conversationally action-packed. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we spend very little time actually talking about how we feel about each other and more time talking about what's going on in our respective lives. We know we love and admire each other and we just use our time to cover a lot of ground and get each other up to speed.
So it was a little surprising to get this email from them yesterday:
From: Mom&DadRF
To: RenaRF
Subject: Thank God!
Dad and I were talking about the elections and I said "Thank God (or whoever) that I didn't raise a Republican. But I know you make your own decisions. But Dad and I hope we at least contributed to you caring about the less fortunate in our society. And we are so proud that you are so dedicated and that you work so hard for candidates who at least seem to give a shit about other people. Forgive us if we take a lot of pleasure, if not the credit, in the person you have become.
Mom and Dad
Just a short email, right? But it says everything there is to say about my parents and about their role in who I have become as a person and politically (the two really can't be separated). My mom knows that I try to live my principles and that I care sometimes to the point where I think I'm going to lose my mind because of what's going on around me. I'm positive MANY here can relate to the feeling.
The Email Backstory
It's important, I think, to understand that the email itself has a backstory. See, my mom and dad got up early yesterday morning (Saturday, January 26, the day of the South Carolina Primary) to vote in the South Carolina Democratic primary. They were at the polls at around 8am. They voted - each of them for the same person. Each of them for Barack Obama.
I talked with my mother at about noon EST yesterday, some hours after they voted. She was literally twisted up about the primary. She didn't feel like she'd be able to wait to hear the results. See, my parents have been Obama supporters for about the last two months (and just FYI, they voted for Edwards in the 2004 SC primary - they love him, truly, but they moved to Obama this time around for a host of reasons). I don't think, prior to the Iowa caucuses, that they would have said they hated Hillary Clinton, but they would have definitely said that they didn't prefer her. So by way of full disclosure here, they have never been in the Hillary Clinton camp despite their admiration for Bill Clinton.
Over the last two weeks, though, neutral Clinton indifference with a preference for Obama has moved into (and I'm being kind) extreme disgust for Clinton and a driven support for Obama. For the first time EVER - I mean EVER - I heard my Democratic-voting mother tell me that she wasn't sure she could vote for Hillary Clinton. I can't tell you how BIG that is. Both of my parents and my mother particularly have lost whatever patience they had for Hillary Clinton given her behavior, that of her campaign and that of her husband over the past two weeks.
Listen - let me say - I don't have an issue with Bill Clinton advocating for his wife. The fact that he is a former President does NOT, in my opinion, mean that he can't campaign for his wife. I don't believe that any advantage he garners by being a former President is "unfair" to Obama or to Edwards. What I have an issue with is what he's saying and how he's saying it. He's Bill Clinton - so let's face it - he's good at crafting his words and delivery in a way that gives him a little squeak room should the comment or statement backfire. But I haven't missed the meaning at ALL.
- Bill Clinton sought to willfully exploit and distort Barack Obama's comments about Ronald Reagan.
You know what? I don't disagree with what Obama said about Reagan AT ALL. Because what he SAID, really, was that Reagan fundamentally change the trajectory of America when he took office (he did) and that the Republicans have co-opted the whole "party of ideas" thing (they have). What he did NOT say was that Reagan was great and that he (Obama) planned to be just like him. What he did NOT say was that the trajectory was a good one. What he did NOT say was that Republican ideas were good ideas.
Let's face it. Obama is betting success in the general on being able to do to Republicans what Reagan did to Democrats (e.g., pull over the "moderate" factions). The entire idea of ending divisiveness is a foundation of his campaign. He and his campaign have tested the waters of the American electorate and they have reached a judgment that the "end of divisiveness" message is a successful one. I don't want to argue the merits of that - you may agree or disagree that this is a good and/or viable campaign strategy - but if you accept that that is one of the core messages of the Obama campaign, you are part of the way to understanding the very measured comments Obama made about Reagan.
Let's just get this straight. Here's what Obama actually SAID:
"Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it."
::snip::
"I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we’re in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren’t working. We’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
Link. And now, here's what Bill Clinton SAID Obama said:
"said President Reagan was the engine of innovation and did more, had a more lasting impact on America than I did. And then the next day he said, 'In the 90s the good ideas came out from the Republicans.' Which it'll be costly maybe down the road for him because it's factually not accurate."
Same link as above for the Clinton quote. I don't know about you, but I don't think Bill Clinton was struck stupid sometime over the last seven years. He knows what Barack Obama said and he knew how he was going to spin it to try to help his wife in what has become a really contentious and less inevitable bid for her Presidency. The fact that it's not even close to accurate and is a total mischaracterization and distortion seems to escape some people. What bothers me more, though, are those who acknowledge that Bill Clinton's comments were wrong AND a distortion yet chalk it up to "toughness" and "what it takes to win". You. Must. Be. Kidding. Me.
The Clinton campaign has clearly settled on a principle-less approach to winning. And remember - "winning" is subjective when you look past the Presidential race. I'll bet GWB considered it a "win" when he initiated warrantless wiretapping. I'm pretty certain GWB also considered it a "win" when he sent Colin Powell up to distort and misrepresent Iraq's WMD threat. The point is, I don't understand - I truly, completely don't - how Hillary Clinton can have the support of ANYONE who has long reviled the tactic of selective excerpting and/or outright distortion. It's evidence of the worst tactics of the administration we revile for it - how can it be excused on her part?
- The Hillary Clinton campaign is actively trying to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan.
I can't tell you what a big deal this is. In case you've been under a rock, here are some of the details:
The major candidates, including Clinton and rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards, had promised not to campaign in either state following the Democratic National Committee’s decision, and Obama and Edwards did not appear on Michigan’s primary ballot. Despite calls from her opponents to remove her name from the ballot, Clinton did not follow suit, and she won the state’s primary January 15, with 55 percent of the vote.
That's right. When Florida and Michigan moved their primaries for the Democrats without approval of the DNC, all three campaigns pledged to honor the DNC's rules. This was back in October 2007, WELL before Hillary Clinton thought her nomination was in peril. Contrast that with statements made on Friday, January 25th:
"I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan," she added.
Link. So let me get this straight - you agreed to the rules back when you thought you'd get your way and now that you AREN'T assured of getting your way, you want to CHANGE THE RULES?? Who does THAT sound like?? I defy you to explain to me how this differs fundamentally from GWB's signing statements, which essentially say "I'll go ahead and do X, but not really."
Moreover - how can ANYONE believe anything Hillary Clinton says at this point? It's clear that she's trying to win. It's clear that she's fighting. But when it becomes expedient to lie about an opponent and to go back on agreements, it's logical, as a voter, to wonder what ELSE is "negotiable" with Hillary Clinton. Honestly - after a rock-solid demonstration of going back on her word, why would anyone, anywhere, expect that she will keep the promises she's making with respect to anything?
- While I don't necessarily agree that things said by the Clinton Campaign PRIOR to the South Carolina primary were race-baiting, I can't ignore the fact that Bill Clinton's comments, after Hillary's resounding SC loss, ARE.
The first two items I highlighted above were absolute dealbreakers for me, but in case they WEREN'T dealbreakers, this one did it:
Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.
Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."
Coming Full Circle and Wrapping it Up
So my mother's email came a few hours after I was just railing against the things I've highlighted above, things that really truly upset me. You know, if you don't like Obama's policies or you think he lacks experience or you simply prefer someone else over him, so be it. The use of lies, distortions, and UN-progressive tactics bothers me to no end as well - but that's not really the crux of the issue for me. The issue, for me, is simple. How you treat people matters. The tradeoffs you're comfortable making as you try to accomplish a goal or achieve something matters. George W. Bush has been such an uncaring and unfeeling President, blind to all but his own interests and those of the Corporations who put him into power. And I don't think any (or the vast majority) of us would say that we're surprised that GWB doesn't care about the middle class and poor and the "little guy". We knew before he ever stole the Presidency what he would be like...
...Because the way he ran his campaign told us so.
I defy you to tell me how Hillary Clinton is behaving differently in her quest for the White House. I'm sorry - I'm not a Machiavellian person. If you think that her means justify the ends, you and I will never see eye to eye on this nor will we find any common ground.
So it was wonderful to get that email from my parents. Because I DO care about other people, about how they are treated, and about their feelings. I believe I've chosen a candidate who fundamentally reflects this core value of my life. I'll state uncategorically as well that I believe John Edwards reflects those core values as well. I'll digress a tad and say that I'm mystified at times that some (just some) of the Edwards supporters seem to be saying, in comments to diaries etc., that they endorse or at least fail to condemn the tactics of the Clinton campaign. Need I point out to you that, but for a difference in fortune, this lying, distorting attention would be turned on Edwards himself if fortunes shifted? I would be outraged on your behalf regardless of whom I supported if it was being done to your guy. I'm a little baffled that there are small pockets who aren't of the same mind.
So thanks for reading - this wasn't a policy-oriented commentary. This was focused more, from my perspective, on a person's core humanity (or lack thereof). If you understand my context, hopefully you also understand why I feel so strongly the way that I do. I tried to keep my diary civil, so I've got that going for me.