It seems that some conservatives hate strong women who happened to be married to strong Democratic political candidates. Or maybe it’s simply that strong women make easy targets.

Hillary Clinton has learned that the hard way . . . twice. First, she was reviled as Bill Clinton’s nerdy, ultra-feminist wife. And then she transformed into a bitchy, ball-busting candidate to be President of the United States who didn’t appeal to large segments of the US population until she teared up on camera and showed she was a “real” woman.

Largely for the same reason, Michelle Obama had to go on “The View” (a US daytime talk show with a predominantly female audience) to show her “warmer” side, though it should be said that she didn’t cry. It seems that many conservatives attack any woman in the political sphere who’s not as unassuming, dainty, non-threatening and “lady-like” as Laura Bush, who knows that her correct place is beside (or more likely, behind) her husband and who evokes the image of the good homemaker and mother (as opposed to strong career woman and intellectual equal).

Not that the two are necessarily contradictory. I grew up with both of my parents in a relatively happy home, but I have no doubt that a large part of whom I am is because of who and how my mother is. She was a force of nature in our family, inspiring all of us to get the best education possible and kicking our butts when necessary. My sister good-humoredly compares my mother to Mama Rose in Gypsy, but my mother also spoiled us, buying us Reeboks when we begged for them even though money was tight or cooking our favorite Jamaican foods whenever we returned home from college. And yes, calling at least once a week once we left home to know how we were doing even as we consistently evaded her phone calls. She did all of that, went back for an advanced degree after we emigrated to the US and worked a full-time job.

And it seems that Michelle Obama had a similar path. She has two young daughters and until the recent campaign, a full-time executive job. And let’s face it, being a mom is not for wimps, much less a mom with a full-time executive job who’s also supporting her husband’s political career and has degrees from both Princeton and Harvard.

So it’s a bit sad that people are attacking her for being too “tough”. And it’s a little bit sad that she needs to go on national TV to prove that she’s “warm”, even though she’s not the one running for president. Certainly a male candidate would never be criticized for being too tough or not warm enough, and I can’t imagine that if Hillary had won the nomination, Bill would be on “The View” showing his warm, fuzzy side. In fact, a lot of people were annoyed when Bill so vigorously and pugnaciously defended his wife, but up to a certain point I guess it was normal, maybe even “chivalrous”.

That made it all the more heartwarming when Michelle paid tribute to the battles that Hillary Clinton has had to fight over the last 16 years, to prove that she can be both tough and feminine at the same time. I was touched that Michelle noted that Hillary was a pioneer, a fighter, and that sexism had played some not unimportant role in the news media’s coverage of Hillary.

In Michelle’s own words: “It’s only when women like her take the hits and it’s painful, it’s hurtful, but she’ s taking them so that my girls, when they come along, won’t have to feel it as badly,” Mrs. Obama said.

See the full interview below.

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about role models and how important they are.

Take, for example, the tennis world. Monica Seles (my childhood tennis hero and the reason why I play with a two-handed backhand) dominated tennis in the late 1980s, and 20 years later there is a generation of Serbian tennis stars inspired by her success — Ana Ivanovic (women’s number 1), Jelena Jankovic (women’s number 2) and Novak Djokovic (men’s number 3 and rising). Similarly, Anna Kournikova’s success inspired a lot of Russian tennis parents to invest more seriously in their daughters’ tennis education. The result is that 5 of the top 10 female tennis players are Russian.

There are, of course, role models who are not athletes. Entertainers also have the ability to inspire. Forbes just published its list of most powerful celebrities, and three of the top 5 celebrities are black and very well paid: Oprah Winfrey (number 1 with 2007 income of $275 million), Tiger Woods (number 2 with 2007 income of $115 million ) and Beyoncé Knowles (number 4 with 2007 income of $80 million). (Angelina Jolie is number 3 with 2007 income of $14 million, and David Beckham is number 5 with 2007 income of $50 million.)

I have no doubt that Oprah’s, Tiger’s and Beyonce’s success will inspire generations of future black athletes, entertainers and moguls.

I myself draw inspiration from their struggles and successes.

That being said, their success does little to undermine the common stereotype that blacks are just great athletes who can sing and dance. In no way do I want to downplay the success of stars like Beyoncé and especially not of Oprah. But my point is that while their amazing collective success and spending power show the value of hard work, God-given talent and clever marketing plans, and while they are trailblazers that still have to overcome remnants of racism within their respective industries, their success comes within an entertainment industry that has traditionally been relatively open to blacks.

That’s why I’m so happy that Obama won the Democratic nomination. I was rooting for Hillary, in part because I grew up with the Clintons and felt a certain amount of nostalgia. But even more importantly, I never thought that white people would vote for Obama, and I didn’t want to see another Republican in office. I thought it was impossible that a black man could become the Democratic Party’s nominee, and even more impossible that he would have a decent chance at becoming the next president of the United States.

I grew up surrounded by heroes, some of whom were famous black athletes and entertainers.

But the possibility of a black President never even entered into the realm of conscious thought, much less hope.

And it’s not like we’ll have to wait 20 years to see the immediate benefits of Obama’s trailblazing campaign. My mother, for example, is driving all over the East Coast to participate in the Obama campaign. He is causing black people of all ages to re-evaluate America and themselves. Before his campaign, my mother had never actively participated in the political process other than to vote. Now she’s giving donations, recruiting friends, calling me whenever there is an important Obama update . . . .

So I think that this is a really unique moment, not just because I can’t wait to get rid of George Bush and replace him with someone with a brain and a heart, but also because Obama’s campaign destroys one of the last areas where blacks have been denied access, where I thought it was impossible even to contemplate a possibility of success.

I mean, outside of Africa and the Caribbean, has a black person ever been elected to run a country in which blacks are a racial minority? Probably not, because there’s still a lingering suspicion/stereotype that blacks simply aren’t smart or capable enough (unless they’re Republicans, in which case they almost have to repudiate their “blackness” in exchange for political gain.)

On the other hand, there are already women running major Western countries and/or campaigning for the top spot, so we know it’s at least possible to dream of a female President.

But blacks have largely been unable to dream this dream. Until now . . .

Now it seems that maybe we can sing, dance, play sports and run countries too.

This is the second episode of nuroaTV, our video channel for real estate. To record it, we went to the March for a Vivienda Digna, which took place on 1 March. We marched from Plaza Catalunya to Via via Laeitana to the beat of Brazilian drums. It seems like I can’t escape Carnaval! I was sambaing during the march — maybe I kind of missed the point?

More seriously, I should probably be more discrete, but that’s not my style. The real story is that we approached the organizers to see if there were some way that we could help out, since we too believe that everyone deserves dignified housing. As I will write in another blog post, I came to Barcelona in chase of quality of life. It’s still here, but life is now a life more expensive than it was just five years ago, and housing is only once indice of the problem.

In any case, the organizers kindly but quickly ushered us out of their offices, noting that they don’t work with “companies”, which I got the impression was a kind of dirty word. I respect that, even though I think that it’s important to include ALL voices in discussions that affect all members of a given society. I might not share the methods of squatters and more revolutionary anti-capitalists, but I do understand their frustration. And the only way to solve the underlying problems is to have a constructive dialogue in which we look for solutions together.

But I’ll save my kumbaya speech for another moment. For now, it’s enough that you enjoy the video, and let me know: What does the right to dignified housing mean to you? Does it mean anything? And if it so, what should society do to ensure this right?

I don’t know why I keep doing it, since it seems that the Wall Street Journal thrives on publishing racially insensitive op-ed pieces, but yesterday got annoyed again when I read John McWhorter’s op-ed piece called “Hillary and MLK“.

Hillary Clinton made the rather dumb observation that Lyndon B. Johnson had been instrumental in pushing through the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which effectively outlawed racial apartheid in the United States. It represented the culmination of the rights for which Martin Luther King had fought and died. Getting the Civil Rights enacted — something that a lot of White Southerners opposed — required a politician with LBJ’s great skills and understanding of how Washington’s political machinery worked.

Hillary’s point was that she could be the Civil Rights Movement’s next LBJ — the sympathetic white president who has the legislative skill and experience to push through difficult civil rights legislation. Community activists (which is what Obama has been throughout much of his life) are essentially the poor man’s lobbyists, but there are many better paid, more influential lobbyists, and that’s a large part of the reason that blacks have not made so many significant political advances since the Civil Rights Era. They don’t have enough political influence.

The President of the United States is the most powerful and influential person in the US (in the world?), and having him (or her) on your side will do a lot to help you win difficult political battles.

So why do I say it was a dumb comment? Hillary was 100% right in her observation, but it was probably not the best comment to make when you need to convince black voters that they should vote for you instead of the first viable black presidential candidate. It’s precisely because everyone knows that the President of the United States is the most powerful person on the planet that many blacks are drawn to support Obama — he’ll probably “feel their pain” better than Hillary can. For him, it’s not just a moral obligation, or the right thing to do. It’s personal.

Hillary’s comment was therefore substantively correct, but politically stupid.

So when I read McWhorter’s piece, I wasn’t annoyed by his premise: That Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she is a civil rights warrior, and no matter how dumb the comment, she is probably not the biggest threat to the black community.

But I was annoyed by his tone. He remarks that blacks are paranoid and lack self-confidence, and that’s the reason why the black community took Hillary’s comment so personally. He writes:

“But why so very, very careful? What effect does it have on anyone’s life if that era is occasionally discussed in less than perfectly genuflective phraseology? Is the Klan waiting behind a hill? Will a black man working at an insurance company in Cleveland have a breakdown because someone didn’t give King precisely enough credit in a quick statement?

There is a willful frailty, a lack of self-confidence, in this kind of thinking. It suggests someone almost searching for things to claim injury about, donning the mantle of the noble victim in order to assuage a bruised ego. . . .

Well, politics is rarely pretty, but in this case the price is too high. For one, misinterpretation of statements in this vein makes black people look disinclined to process detail and context — in other words, dim. It only gives that much more fodder to views on black intelligence like those uttered by James Watson.“

But wait a second. I’m black and I agreed with the logic behind Hillary Clinton’s comment. And . . . surprise! He’s black too, and he agreed with Hillary’s comment. So why are all black people all of a sudden too insecure, too dumb and prone to proving James Watson’s theory that blacks are genetically inferior? Has he spoken to any black people before writing his op-ed? Or did he just listen to a few loud- mouth political activists like Al Sharpton who certainly do not speak for me and my black friends?

I remember when I was at Yale College, a conservative friend of mine tried to convince me to join her political group. Her rationale was that I was the kind of black guy that her conservative party would love to embrace. I’m sure that Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas were lured by similar entreaties — that they were the “smart ones” among the race of gifted dancers and athletes. I’m not saying that she was necessarily racist. Just that she was looking for a black poster child to show that her view of the world was colorblind. The logic there is a little twisted, isn’t it?

But forget about black people for a second. Which interest group in America isn’t overly sensitive? Aren’t all politics based on a volatile mix of lobbying for substantive rights and interests, whining and posturing? Isn’t that the American way in an era of political correctness? Gay groups got Isaiah Washington fired from “Grey’s Anatomy” for saying the word “faggot” on national television. The Jewish community has an advocacy group whose primary purpose is to scrutinize public statements that might be viewed as anti-Semitic, or in some cases, anti-Israel. Cuban-Americans fight vigorously against any measure that might even remotely reinforce support for Fidel Castro, to the point that it is pretty much illegal for Americans to travel to (or spend money in) Cuba.

And it’s not just minority groups that play this game. Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Wall Street Journal, has an entire television station devoted to fighting against the “left-wing” media, showing that even powerful white men get into the whole whining and word-parsing game.

Are all these groups also “dim”? Or is it only “dim” when black people do it?

I think it’s fairly disgusting when a black man feels like his only way to advance personally is at the cost of other blacks . . . like he wants to show the white world (and the Wall Street Journal’s target readers) that he is the genetic defect among his genetically inferior black brothers and sisters . . . the rest of us are idiots, but he’s been graced with the gift of keen insight. He probably wouldn’t have gotten published in the Wall Street Journal if he’d written the “obvious” piece noting that some black political leaders and Hillary Clinton were acting stupidly in this situation, so he chose to flavor his article and increase his chances of getting published by insinuating that this episode might prove to some that blacks as a race are genetically inferior.

All I can say is: “n***a, please”.

What makes for a great first lady?

Are they the same traits that make for a great woman (as opposed to a great “lady”)?

First ladies — particularly younger first ladies — are often thrust into their nations’ fairy tales, representing their nation’s hopes and desires. They must become the people’s princess, which entails a series of contradictory and often impossible-to-achieve expectations.

It seems that first and foremost, most nations want their first ladies to be beautiful or at least supremely feminine/elegant. A first lady must be strong yet vulnerable and lady-like. She must be out of reach of the average male voter but somehow transmit accessibility. She must be classy but humble. Men must want to ravish her, and women must want to be her. Most importantly, she must never forget that her rightful place is at best next to (and usually behind) her powerful husband, who is the commander-in-chief. (It’s ironic to note how different the situation is when the wife is the person running for President. One of Hillary’s biggest appeals to many Democrats is that Bill Clinton comes as part of the package.)

In this sense, the quintessential First Lady is Jacqueline Kennedy, who claimed elegance by conjuring the spirits of her French ancestors (the Bouviers).

Carla Bruni is at least as pretty, as elegant and as learned as Jackie O. So how then do we understand all of the controversy and excitement about her planned engagement to French president Nicolas Sarkozy?

On paper, Bruni has it all:

• She is beautiful: She was one of the most highly paid models in the 1990s. She was the face of Dior and Chanel, and shot over 250 magazine covers.
• She is rich: She is the heiress to an Italian tire fortune.
• She is “well-bred”: Her stepfather is an Italian tire magnate and classical composer, and her mother is a concert pianist. She is well-educated and speaks three languages.
• She is successful: In addition to being a supermodel, she won the French equivalent of a Grammy as the country’s best female singer in 2004.

So what is it about Bruni that turns some French people off? Is is that she already has it all, and no one likes to see the genetically lucky get luckier? Is it that her relationship with Sarkozy started so soon after his divorce from his ex-wife? Is it the difference in age and sex appeal between Bruni and Sarkozy? I’m sure all of this has something to do with it, but I don’t think it’s the main reason.

Bruni’s biggest drawback, presumably, is that she is (as Beyonce might say) an independent woman. She has been quoted as saying that “love lasts for a long time, but burning desire, two or three weeks“. As such, she prefers polygamy and polyandry to monogamy. She has also described herself as a “cat” who knows how to tame men. And, of course, she has often been photographed throughout her career in her underwear.

In this sense, Bruni is a highly sexualized, unconventional woman.

Shakespeare might call her a shrew in need of a good taming. That’s not exactly high praise for an aspiring first lady.

A similar argument was made about Hillary Clinton when she first entered on the world’s stage. Before the designer pant suits, blond highlights and expensive hair cuts were the images of an asexual, humorless, fashion-illiterate Hillary with coke-rimmed glasses, a headband and not one ounce of glamour.

It is arguably this enduring image of Hillary — and her statements implying that she felt no need to “stand by her man” like some “little woman” and the disdain with which she contemplated being a housewife rather than becoming a high-powered lawyer — that explains why many “traditional” men and women have been uncomfortable with Hillary and why her tears were such a powerful statement of her renewed status as a woman.

It would be like Carla Bruni saying that she was a born-again virgin.

Though one was a top fashion model, and the other seemed to resist any desire to be fashionable, both Carla and Hillary share the fact that their unwillingness to conform to traditional gender roles arguably renders them inappropriate first ladies before large sections of their respective publics.

But maybe Carla has started a new trend. There are rumors in the Spanish and Latin American press that Naomi Campbell is the new sweet thing of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. The official version is that Naomi is meeting with various Latin American leaders as part of her new role as a contributing editor of GQ Magazine, and that one of her interviews was with Hugo Chavez, who supposedly fell head over heels inlove with the tempestuous model. Now that Carla has conquered Nick, it seems that the tabloids think that love is in the air whenever a model is in the vicinity of a horny, middle-aged politician.

These arm-chair discussions about race and gender are one thing.

But let’s seriously hope that Naomi is not that crazy.

I must admit. I wasn’t so happy the first time that I saw “Mama Sarah” on CNN. After noting that getting to Mama Sarah’s remote village in Kenya was almost as difficult as parting the Red Sea (my words, not hers), the reporter explained: “When we arrived, Sarah Onyango Obama was waiting with a smile as she cut up corn maize preparing animal feed. As the chickens clucked and a rooster crowed, ‘Mama Sarah’ is as busy bringing in the crops as her grandson is trying to bring in the votes.”

In this case, a video really was worth 100.000 words. Couldn’t somebody have taken Mama Sarah to the beauty shop and gotten her a nice little pant suit? With $100 million raised for his election, Obama could have probably sent her a few hundred dollars to prepare for the interview. And Michelle Obama could have lent her those white pearls she’s always wearing.

Instead, there was Mama Sarah looking as if time had stood still and she was still back in 18th century Africa surrounded by her hungry chicken. As the CNN reporter explained: “The Obamas of Kenya still live as they have for decades, even though their most famous relative is in a hotly contested race to become the next president of the United States.”

I was hoping that the CNN report would be the end of the Mama Sarah story until I opened up a Spanish newspaper today and saw a two-page spread talking about how race could enter into US politics via Obama. Though the point of the article was that we should not descend into traditional, divisive racial politics, the accompanying picture was of Mama Sarah, though the story had hardly mentioned her. There was no picture of Obama. The picture of Mama Sarah apparently said it all.

There’s no doubt that Mama Sarah has a certain Harriet Tubman-esque poise and dignity that belies her underprivileged social status (Harriet Tubman was a runaway slave that helped freed hundreds of black slaves during the 1800s. She is viewed with great respect in the black community). But there is also no doubt that her image is more Oxfam than Vanity Fair.

Perhaps I suffer from some sort of post-colonial mindset (I’m pretty sure I do. How could I not?). I mean, my Jamaican grandparents all grew up on farms, and one of my fondest memories of my grandmother is when she killed her prized chicken and served it to my sister and me on one of our annual visits.

That being said, if I were running for President, I’m not sure that that personal image would be the one I would want circulated. And if I’m being 100% honest, the issue is that I can’t imagine Mama Sarah in the White House with European royals or foreign dignitaries. I don’t know if Obama would invite her in any case, but I suspect that she wouldn’t fit in.

But maybe that’s the point. My “slave-mentality” issues aside, there’s no doubt that the politicization of Mama Sarah can be politically dangerous for Obama. White voters might be willing to tolerate him, because he represents the ideal of a colorblind America. Obama is biracial, was educated at Harvard, and is more eloquent and inspirational than even the best white candidates like Hillary Clinton and John McCain. He is the American Dream writ large.

But on an equally symbolic level, Mama Sarah is a visual reminder of the complexity of race, the pervasiveness of racial differences and the often impermeable nexus between race and social status.

And someone wants Americans to remember that if they choose Obama, Mama Sarah — and all that she represents — comes as part of the deal.

I’m not saying that Obama has to hide Mama Sarah, but if I don’t know anything about his white grandmother (or even his white mother who raised him), why do I need to know so much about Mama Sarah? Why is this story — and these images in particular — so newsworthy?

Who the hell is circulating this story about Mama Sarah? And why is it that so many traditional media outlets seem to think that the Mama Sarah back-story is so important. A Google search for “Mama Sarah Obama” generates 32,600 stories in English and, more impressively, 34.500 in Spanish.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I can’t help but remember the blog post that I wrote the other day noting that Karl Rove helped George Bush get elected Governor of Texas, beating a popular incumbent, by calling voters and insinuating that the Governor (a tough woman) hired lots of lesbians in her office. And then he helped George Bush beat John McCain by calling voters and insinuating that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black baby.

Politicians — both Democrats and Republicans — will do anything to win, and they are not above inciting racist and homophobic fears.

The main Spanish newspaper, El Pais, is in agreement with this theory. In an article called “La Abuela y la Lágrima” (The Grandmother and the Tear Drop), the author posits that there are various groups that will do anything to guarantee that Obama loses — both Democrats in favor of Hillary and Republicans preparing for a general election. And they want to make sure that US voters get to know Mama Sarah, who speaks no English, is poor and has a third-world lifestyle.

White voters might be comfortable with Obama in the White House. But they might not be so happy imagining Mama Sarah and her clucking chickens there.

Let’s hope that they prove me wrong.

Politics makes for strange bed-fellows.

I just read Karl Rove’s explanation of why Hillary won. It’s the Wall Street Journal’s most popular piece of the day.

We have Karl Rove to blame for George W. Bush’s success in American politics. Rove has often been the “architect” of GWB’s election campaigns, getting him elected Governor of Texas in 1994 and 1998, and then as President of the United States in 2000 and 2004.

A few details about Rove:

• He never knew his biological father. After his parents divorced when he was 19, he learned that the man who his “father” (Louis Claude Rove) was not his biological father, and he later discovered that his adoptive father (Louis Claude Rove) was gay. He says that he loves Mr. Rove, though he’s not against using anti-gay sentiments to convince Republican voters to support his candidates.
• He started college at the University of Utah but never finished.

• He has known George W. Bush since 1973.

• He was fired from George H.W. Bush’s 1992 presidential campaign after it was discovered that he had spread a negative story in Esquire Magazine about another Bush adviser who was more favored than he was.

• GWB won his first election as Texas Governor, in part because Rove’s staff called voters to ask whether people would be “more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if [they] knew her staff is dominated by lesbians.” During the race, a regional chairman of the Bush campaign was quoted criticizing Richards for “appointing avowed homosexual activists” to state jobs.

• During the 2000 Republican primary against John McCain, Rove’s staff played on racist fears to undermine rival John McCain, asking: “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

• He eventually resigned as a Bush adviser when it became clear that he had helped to leak the name of a CIA operative to the press because her husband had written an op-ed in the New York Times doubting that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. Bush let his “architect” go, because he was involved in too many scandals and investigations related to the misuse of power to attack and undermine political enemies.

I give this background to explain why I wasn’t shocked by the clearly racist innuendos advanced by Rove in his explanation of Hillary’s victory, which makes me think it’s just a sneak peek into the Republican National Committee’s eventual attack on Obama if he becomes the Democratic nomination. Either that, or they’re trying to convince Democrats and Independents to vote for Hillary, because they’re ready to go to battle with Bill and Hillary — Rove’s been locked in that battle since 1992 when he got kicked off of Bush Sr.’s campaign — but Obama is still too new and too charismatic to attack too directly.

Rove notes that Hillary won for four reasons:

• Her appeal to women: No problem here.

• Hillary’s “personal” moments: His attack on Obama here is phrased in subtle racial terms. He says that Obama shouldn’t have told Hillary that she was “likable enough”, because it was “trash talking [that] was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.” Excuse me? I agree that Obama’s comment was ungracious, but John Edwards was a lot more aggressive in attacking Hillary. And both Bill and Hillary attacked Obama non-stop (a point he credits Clinton for below). Would the basketball imagery be equally applicable to Edwards, Hillary or Bill? Or is it most suggestive when used about a black guy? When I first read it, I thought: Hey, maybe I’m being too sensitive, maybe Rove isn’t a racist despite the tactics he’s used in the past. But then I read on and realized that the basketball comment was just a warm-up.

• Bill’s attacks on Obama: He just got through saying that Obama was ungracious to attack Hillary’s likability. But Rove then goes to great lengths to credit Bill Clinton for attacking Obama (though Rove is careful never to actually praise either Clinton too much). He says that Clinton makes a decent attacker but promises that there is more harmful information out there about Obama (and suggests that he has it) and that there are people who are/will be more skilled at executing the killer blows.

In his words: “Former President Bill Clinton hit a nerve by drawing attention to Mr. Obama’s conflicting statements on Iraq. There’s more — and more powerful — material available. Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate. In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting “present” on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates. He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through. . . . He won’t escape criticism on all this easily. But the messenger and the message need to be better before the Clintons can get all this across. Hitting Mr. Obama on his elementary school essays won’t cut it.“

So Obama is “lazy” and given to misstatements, but George Bush was Shakespeare? Didn’t he have difficulty speaking basic English? Also, isn’t it curious that the votes that Obama missed were precisely about abortion and gun-control — two issues that Republican strategists use to rile up their supporters? Might this just a pre-emptive attempt to dissuade Republicans thinking about voting for Obama? Given that Obama is undoubtedly pro-choice and pro-gun control, why would a Republican highlight that Obama supposedly missed votes? Would that make it easier to get their favored positions passed?

In summary, according to Rove, Obama is a lazy, uninformed, basketball-playing Negro who is afraid to — or too lazy to — vote on issues such as gun control and abortion.

• Obama is a great speaker but he’s not saying anything meaningful: On this point, I can’t really disagree, except to say that most politicians don’t really saying anything meaningful, relying mostly on soundbites and symbols to get elected and re-elected. Anyone remember “you’re either with us, or you’re against us”? Hardly a very sophisticated statement of substantive foreign policy, though it literally changed the world with its simplicity (or better said, simplification of complex issues). And as the Hillary crying episode showed, sometimes images are more important than being brilliant and substantive. It’s sad, but that’s how people like Karl Rove get weak candidates like George W. Bush elected President.

That being said, I have no doubt that Obama will make a more substantive president than George W. Bush.

But then again, that’s not setting the bar very high.

Here’s how one female New Hampshire voter explained her decision to vote for Hillary over Obama to a New York Times reporter: “Women finally saw a woman — perhaps a tough woman, but a woman with a gentle heart,” said Elaine Marquis, a receptionist from Manchester, New Hampshire who had been deciding between Obama and Hillary.

Hmm. So Hillary’s finally a woman because she cried publicly?

Then again, Obama mentioned slavery and abolitionists during his stirring, almost evangelical “Yes, we can!” concession sermon that recalled the oratorical magic of Martin Luther King.

But isn’t he the (black) candidate that transcends race in color-blind America?

In the current US elections, it seems that a personal connection with voters is essential — voters are tired of phony politicians who say what you want to hear and then do nothing more than fundraise and campaign to stay in office while the country rots around him (yes, Dubya, I’m talking about you). So the candidates have got to be “real”, which essentially means that they have to be skillful at strategically exploiting their personal histories without appearing phony.

Hillary’s message during her now famous tearful plea was “Don’t you see me crying? This election is personal to me. It’s not just politics.”

For his part, John Edwards mentioned that he grew up a poor, white boy whose parents weren’t particularly educated and whose father worked in a mill at least 50 times (not really, but it seemed like it) during the recent New Hampshire debate. That Edwards is now worth about $30 million is personal information that doesn’t need to be shared.

Obama’s gift is that he transmits a sincere desire for change. He doesn’t need to let people know it’s personal. They can feel it, and they can see it (he’s black!).

So in these elections each leading Democratic candidate claims to be an agent of change, because the need for change is something that is intensely personal for him or her, either because of DNA or because of personal family history.

And after months (decades?) of decisively not playing the gender card, stoic Hillary had no choice but to counter Obama’s unspoken genetic claim to being the definitive agent of change with a visual reminder of her own — crying like a little girl (not quite, but you get the point). It apparently reminded a lot of female voters: “Hey, she really is one of us, and if she wins, that’s going to be a pretty big change for all women — the first female President. We have to vote for her.” And men who thought she was a bitch before suddenly realized that maybe the Iron Lady is just a vulnerable woman like their wives, mothers and daughters.

(By way of digression, I can’t help but remember the movie “The Queen” for which Helen Mirren won an Oscar last year. The movie shows how a stoic Queen Elizabeth II alienated herself from the British public — and put the entire British monarchy at jeopardy — when she refused to show emotion when Princess Diana died. Only after showing a slight bit of human emotion — if I remember correctly, her speech remind the British public that “as a mother and a grandmother”, she felt a sense of loss at Diana’s death — did the British public rush back to embrace their Queen. Maybe this suggests that traditional prototypes of powerful women as cold, stoic eunuchs are outdated and need to be updated more in the reality-show mold of princess Diana or at least of Oprah Winfrey, who is never afraid to cry with her public or discuss openly painful elements of her past.)

So maybe politics is more than anything a visual medium - the ultimate reality TV — even more dramatic than Hollywood.

Maybe traditional notions of powerful women are now being remodeled by younger women who grew up seeing other women in power.

Maybe Hillary could only lay a legitimate claim to being a change agent when she reminded people — in a stirring visual display of “feminine” vulnerability — that she is a truly modern woman (tough but vulnerable at the same time), and that as a woman with a very good shot at becoming the first female President, electing her would be a momentous change in and of itself.

Maybe Obama has been benefiting from his unique ability to transcend and exploit his race simultaneously. Everyone knows that he’s black, but enough white people don’t seem to care to give him a decent shot at being the first black president. That being said, would he be as interesting a candidate if he weren’t black? Would his story be as compelling for the media or for voters if he weren’t so “modern”?

It’d be the ultimate irony if strategic use of the race or gender card in a moment when “change” is the buzz word du jour is ultimately what causes America to elect its first black or female President. Maybe we should all buy George Bush a drink, because if his leadership didn’t suck so badly and bring the country to the point of another recession, the American people wouldn’t feel such a dramatic need for “change”.

Don’t call it a comeback, she’s been her for years!

I still hadn’t recovered from my 4 hours of sleep last night, but it’s now 6AM, I haven’t slept a wink tonight and I’m still energized by these elections. I guess I didn’t realize how much they mattered to me. Last night, everyone was predicting that Obama was going to win by at least 5 - 10 points today and that Hillary was effectively out of the race. Apparently, even though she’d raised $100 million and still has $20 million in cash to spend - and even though fewer than 1% of the US population have actually voted, even including New Hampshire’s voters — her investors were also buying into the Obama coronation.

And then Hillary became female again. Her voice broke on national TV. She reminded people that Obama was black, but she was a woman, and it’d be a huge “change” if Americans elected the first female president. Her breakdown was apparently one of the most viewed clips on YouTube today. Male political analysts are noting that “as men” the moment touched them. And Obama’s analysts are saying that women saved Hillary since her moment of weakness — and the reminder that she is a woman — made them feel sorry for and identify with her, resulting in a tsunami of support from the female community.

So I think that there are at least 4 important lessons to be learned here:

• Politics are at least as much about emotion as they are about issues. Hillary learned that the hard way. Her ability to win will depend on her ability to adapt to that political reality. And like any good performer, sometimes you have to be able to dig deep and gut out a convincing performance if it isn’t coming naturally.
• Bill and Hillary Clinton are political maestros. He was labelled the Comeback Kid when he ran in 1992, and she’s now being labelled the Comeback Gal. What does that make Chelsea?
• The political pundits don’t know shit! Hindsight is often 20-20, but it’s a lot more difficult to predict the future, even with clever pollsters. The big question tonight is: How did all of these “experts” get it so wrong? And more importantly, why should we trust them going forward? CNN’s host unwittingly betrayed the arrogance of political pundits when he noted: ““The actual voters can surprise people.” It’s almost as if, the pollsters and analysts believe that they are the bearers of political truth and the voters are the pests who sometimes get in the way.
• As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, the big fear of the African-American community is that we can’t allow ourselves to believe the Barack hype, because what white people might say to a pollster — “Oh, I love Barack Obama! Of course I’m voting for him.” — might not reflect what they do when they are alone in the voting booth. It’d be sad if that factor — that is, race — had any significant role in explaining Hillary’s comeback and the exaggerated poll numbers in favour of Obama.

For me the ideal would be Hillary in 2008 and Obama in 2012 or 2016. He has time to gain the relevant experience to transform his poetry to prose, as Hillary suggests in her revised stump speech.

I’m getting caught up in the US political elections. I’m staying up most nights until about 4AM during the primary/caucus season watching CNN or reading the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times for more coverage, more analysis. (I’m especially loving the integration of blogs and video streams in The New York Times.)

And the big story before today’s New Hampshire primaries is that Hillary Clinton showed . . . emotion. She actually got teary-eyed when a female questioner asked her how she deals with the pressure, frustration, disappointment and constant attacks. In short, how can you not take it personally when everyone basically says that you a cold, cunning bitch? Doesn’t it hurt that all of your experience, preparation and contacts are irrelevant because most people don’t like you and won’t like you no matter what you say or do?

Obama emotes. Bill Clinton cries. Even George Bush got teary-eyed when remembering the terrorist attacks. But the fact that Hillary — a woman — shows emotion is what people consider noteworthy. (This reminds me of the Sex and the City episode whether Charlotte warns Samantha that the worst thing that can ever happen to a woman at her job is that her co-workers see her crying, because from that moment on, she’ll be labeled weak and emotional.)

I don’t really think it’s all Hillary’s fault, though she must accept some of the blame for her personal choices. I mean, even I was happy to see that she finally let her hair down and stopped trying to be a superhuman SuperWoman. But I do understand that powerful women in high-powered positions often have no choice but to become near robots in order to survive in corporate America. Some of my best female friends — people who I know have more heart, soul and conviction than 99% of the population — are so wrapped up in being as good as men at work that they find themselves wondering whether all of their professional success was worth the personal sacrifices — no meaningful relationships, no kids but lots of money.

Political America has to be even worse. In a context where survival of the fittest is the only relevant principle, Hillary’s had to develop a thick-skin to show that she’s not a stereotypical woman who’d launch nuclear war because she just had her period. Even when her traditional status as a woman was challenged when her husband cheated on her on numerous occasions before the entire world, she maintained a brave face for her family’s well-being. And while trying to be a good wife and good mother, she also had to navigate being a powerful woman who grew up when it wasn’t so common for women to have power (she is 60 years old after all). Fortunately or unfortunately for her, she was never the beauty queen, so she couldn’t rely on her feminine wiles as a defense mechanism. She’s no Southern belle.

So after literally decades of toughening her skin to be able to deal with all of the personal attacks — she’s not pretty enough . . . why would she wear that? . . . is she getting fat? . . . her daughter is not so pretty — she inherited her mother’s looks . . . she’s too manly . . . even her husband prefers to screw every ugly trashy woman who give him a bit of attention rather than be with her sexually . . . i wonder if they have sex . . . people say she is a lesbian . . . — people are surprised that she’s not highly emotional in public.

I think it goes to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Even though all of the candidates are promising “change”, it’s clear that change is slow, frustrating and sometimes ephemeral. When I was a college student so many years ago, one of my favorite US constitutional law cases was Hopkins v. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Long story short, Ann Hopkins was a ball-busting top accountant at PwC up for partner in the 1980s. Even though she was a top performer, the firm opted not to make her partner, based on the fact that she was not feminine enough. They thought that she was too aggressive and literally advised her to walk, talk and dress in a more feminine manner. She sued PwC in 1983 for gender discrimination. The Supreme Court agreed with her. And from what I remember of the legal opinion — I haven’t read it in at least 10 years, so that’s a pretty big caveat — the Court argued that this kind of attitude puts women in an impossible position, a catch 22: They have to prove that they are at least as “tough”, “emotionless” and “professional” as businessmen, but they must also be “feminine” and “lady-like”. In other words, women must be part Scarlett O’Hara, part Rambo. The can’t be “pussies”. They had to show that they have “balls” but they can’t be “bitches” either.

This is a balance that men typically don’t have to make, and it’s one that’s near impossible to achieve. The result is a glass ceiling that means that women often don’t ascend to the highest levels in business or politics. That was true 25 years ago, and it seems to be equally true today.

I’m not going to go so far as Gloria Steinem, who has an editorial in the Times saying that racial progress often comes at the cost of gender equality. Like so many feminists before her, she argues that it makes sense that Americans would vote first for a black man before they’d vote for a white woman, because a man — even a black man — is still a man. I think that this is a tired argument, and no one was making this argument even 2 weeks when Obama’s biggest liability was the doubt that white America would never vote for him, while everyone assumed that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate. In the US, I think that white women as a group are generally more powerful and economically privileged than black men (to say nothing of black women), and certainly better represented in the halls of power. But as I said, I’m not going to go there.

I will simply say that I feel badly that even Hillary Clinton can’t escape her gender’s glass ceiling. And if she can’t do it, I don’t see why we should think that Obama will be any more successful in escaping his race’s glass ceiling. It’s just a matter of time. I hope I’m wrong, but my biggest fear is that the media is building him up — just as they did over the last 6 months with Hillary Clinton when she was declared unbeatable — only to tear him down when they all remember in the privacy of their voting booths that he’s really a not-so-nice-word-that-begins-with-n-and-is-still-used-in-some-corners-to-describe-black-people.