Democratic Idols: The Mother and Child Reunion

[McCamy Taylor]

“Clinton has not only failed her own test of the 3 AM call, she has exhibited a catastrophic failure of judgment in this campaign of hers”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5438043

Obama: I think Ronald 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…. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

(video of Obama included at this link)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/17/obamas_reagan_comparison_spark_1.html

We have all come to live with the fact that Ronald Reagan is more popular now than John Wayne ever dreamed of being. He rides a white stallion and chops wood on Sunday and his wife hates sex and drugs. These things are taken for granted and admired by almost everybody. Reagan’s most recent approval rating in the Gallup Poll was 68 percent, the highest figure enjoyed by any president since Gallup went into business and perhaps even higher than George Washington….But there is something distinctly different in the idea that Lester Maddox is once again a major voice in national politics, despite his legacy of shame…Some things are unacceptable, regardless of partisan politics and the inexorable rise and rebirth of swine like Maddox is one of them….the man would embarrass South Africa.
Hunter S. Thompson “Lester Maddox Lives” Generation of Swine

Maybe it was inevitable. With a solid year and a half in which to campaign, the Democratic candidates are no longer the ones that we elect. The voters are now weighing the ability of their campaigns to lead the country. Or, to put it into terms that may make more sense, the candidates have been mythologized, and now we are being asked to choose an archetype, Hero-King Obama, Goddess-Witch Hillary or in case those two slay each other in the primaries Martyr- Saint John Edwards .

Before you go any farther, it really helps to have read three journals which I wrote around the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. For those who can not be bothered, I will insert summaries, but you will have a hard time following along if you have not read the original journals.

Between Iowa and New Hampshire I wrote

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/118

Obama as Mesiah: The Myth of the Birth of the President


I wrote this before every national newspaper was going on and on about the “Obama cult.” Since no one reads me except a few Democrats at DU, don’t blame me. This essay analyzed a trend. I was performing the duties of a “mythologist” as Roland Barthes would describe it, someone who deciphers the fictions we---the press, the Obama campaign, Obama supporters, readers of his books, the public in general---weave together into some great big Signified with a capital S full of all sorts of Monumental Earth Shattering Significance.

But yeah, I guess I was right on the money when I described the way that the story we are fed about Barack Obama follows the hero birth myth as described by Otto Rank to a T, and how his message makes him into the promised young god-king who will slay the ogre-father (Bush-Cheney) and liberate us from death/sin/oppression/war/recession. Because we know that the Karl Rove strategy is to attack your opponent’s perceived strength, and barely a month later the press was all over Obama for being a cult leader and the biggest corrupter of youth since Socrates.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein8feb08,0,1554841.column

LA TIMES:Obamaphilia has gotten creepy….What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a politician.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html?ex=1360126800&en=6440a44ffc543ad1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

DAVID BROOKS: Meanwhile, Obama’s people are so taken with their messiah that soon they’ll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1710721,00.html

JOE KLEIN: there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism

What is creepy is how the press can all come out with the same talking point at the same time.

Attacks against Obama’s religion, calling him a Muslim or attempting to paint him as a member of a dangerous separatist cult are part of this same strategy. They called Jesus a heretic, too. In 2006, Debbie Schlussel was one of the very first to attack Obama on this front, issued many of the right wing talking points that would later be parroted by other members of the press. Note how she uses the Otto Rank myths in her predictions.

So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian, and even if he despised the behavior of his father (as Obama said on Oprah); is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html

The outcast boy who seeks to reclaim his rightful place as his father’s heir, surpassing him but also taking what his father had as his own always becomes the protector of the father’s people and faith---or so the myth goes. As Moses gave up the wealth and religion of the Egyptians who adopted him, so Schlussel insists, Obama will give up the religion of his mother. And because there is a whole literature of mythology—some classical and some modern--- which repeats this story until it becomes natural in its familiarity, the press can easily make this fiction seem real.

In his essay “Myth Today” at the end of Mythologies Rolande Barthe says

For the very end of myths is to immobilize the world: they must suggest and mimic a universal order which has fixated once and for all the hierarchy of possessions. Thus, every day and everywhere, man is stopped by myths, referred by them to this motionless prototype which lives in his place, stifles him in the manner of a huge internal parasite and assigns to his activity the narrow limits within which he is allowed to suffer without upsetting the world: bourgeois pseudo-physics is in the fullest sense a prohibition for man against inventing himself. Myths are nothing but this ceaseless, untiring solicitation, this insidious and inflexible demand that all men recognize themselves in this image, eternal yet bearing a date, which was built of them one day as if for all time. For the Nature, in which they are locked up under the pretext of being eternalized, is nothing but an Usage. And it is this Usage, however lofty, that they must take in hand and transform.

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~marton/myth.html

In order to “take in hand and transform” the myths which attempt to take a fiction and make it seem natural—inevitable--- Barthes recommends viewing the myth on two levels. One, the myth is a real thing, because it exists and has an effect on the way that we act and interact in the world. The Obama campaign truly is riding high on a wave of success that has much to do with its mythic appeal. But at the same time, one must play the role of mythologist, deconstructing the myth. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. You can know that the campaign is not the candidate and that the quality of the campaign is not a guarantee of a quality presidency----the Reagan administration was proof of that. Yet, you can also appreciate the value of a quality campaign or myth in selling a quality candidate. The important thing----the liberating thing is to realize that the two are separate, like the front and back of a coin which will always exist together but will never meet.

The problem comes when we mistake the myth for nature or the campaign for the candidate. In 1984, people may have voted for Morning in America, but they got Mourning in America, because they were unable to play mythologist and deconstruct the myth behind the Reagan message of optimism. Hope that is only hope does not feed the poor or give chemotherapy to the uninsured or fund AIDs research or clean the air.

“The third type of focusing is dynamic, it consumes the myth according to the very ends built into the structure: the reader lives the myth as a story at once true and unreal.” Barthes

Also important to note. “Men do not have with myth a relationship based upon truth but on use ; they depoliticize according to their needs. “ With “political….as describing the whole of human relations in their real, social structure, in their power of making the world.” In other words, myth takes the humanity out of the course of human events. It says These things must happen because they are destined to happen, not because real live human beings with real human needs in these specific circumstances responding to their economic, environmental and social forces acted in this way. Predestination has become a player in this election, as I will discuss later, which is an odd state of affairs in a democracy.

Understanding myth can give us great power to understand why we sometimes feel powerless to affect change that is in our best interest. It can tell us why we keep going down the same garden path, even though it leads to the same briar patch. It can allow us to pick and choose the myths which are most appropriate for our present circumstances. But only if we can recognize that we are not like characters in a Greek tragedy consigned to act out our roles.

The next journal could be subtitled Chronicles of a Martyrdom Foretold We all knew that it was coming. The signs were there---mythic signs as well as factual ones. No one bothered to intercede. The way in which the deed was done made it seem inevitable, desired even, for the American left does love its political martyrs.


The journal was John Edwards’ Body: An American Saint
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/119

With a title like that, you know that the Edwards campaign will not end well. However, I wrote this after Iowa, when Edwards had an upset second place finish. He should have been doing very well. Money should have started rolling in. He was on top of the issues that mattered at the time----the economy, health care. Only the press didn’t exclaim Wow! Look at the John Edwards! He is beating Hillary Clinton! Who is he? What is his appeal? Let’s take another look at him! No, they said The John Edwards campaign is through. Don’t send him any money. . (I actually heard this or the equivalent of this on CNN) Or, they just said Obama was first and Hillary was third and pretended that Nobody came in Second. Death by silence.

From this, I knew that the press had decided to make Edwards a martyr. They did not care that they were doing it for all the world to see or that they would have to take tremendous flak for it (and they did, even Keith Olbermann who seldom criticizes any MSM players except those on the right got upset over this media conspiracy and complained about it on air). It was too important that John Edwards be booted from the race. He kept bringing the campaign back to progressive issues. He polled too well against all the Republicans. And he had vowed to stay in the race in order to keep talking about the issues that mattered to him and his wife. Like John Brown or Joe Hill, he was a dangerous man to the status quo. The American Chambers of Commerce put a $60 million bounty on his head.

So, the press—the entire press, liberal as well as mainstream--- played Herod and Salome both, and they assigned John Edwards the role of St. John the Baptist and cut his head clean off. Three days after I predicted that John Edwards would be a martyr, Lawrence O’Donnell took up a pen and committed assassination by written word in John Edwards is a Loser

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/john-edwards-is-a-loser_b_81045.html

A loser like Edwards has no status or dignity to lose. Campaigning and losing is his life. So, he will continue his simple-minded, losing campaign and deny Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the one-on-one contest they deserve.
If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation.

This is one for the journalistic Hall of Shame. “No status or dignity” “Losing is his life” “Simple-minded” “Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man.”--- Southern man as racist, low class inbred moron living in a trailer park. Straight out of Tobacco Road. I thought John Edwards was supposed to be some kind of fancy pants rich lawyer in a million dollar house. Who would have thought he was Li’l Abner?

O’Donnell did not do it alone. Arianna Huffington helped him by putting it in her all-Obama all-the-time publication. And the MSM was on the case, too. In another journal I document this atrocity from Hardball

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/120

On Hardball Edwards was officially dubbed the spoiler who would prevent Obama from winning. That’s right. He is only staying in the race to steal votes from Hillary haters that rightfully belong to Obama. All his talk of One America and helping the poor is just a lie. He is wasting a year of his dying wife’s life in order to thwart Obama’s dream. Unless he is trying to thwart Hillary’s dream. It probably depends upon which state they are about to enter. (McCamy Taylor)

Before the month of January was out, John Edwards had announced his decision to withdraw from the Democratic primary race. Now, what did this really amount to? Did Democrats really, truly think that John Edwards was a member of the Snopes clan, one of those scheming nasty low lifes that Faulkner wrote about? Of course not. They had been sucked in by the myth of John Edwards, the man who had no business being in a Democratic primary. Never mind that he was the man most likely to beat any of the Republicans or that he started the race neck and neck with Obama, who got tons of publicity from the press while Edwards got next to none (it has been documented). The myth goes that John Edwards was not meant to run a campaign. Such behavior only cheapened his message, which was of a higher, purer nature. When he ran ads that criticized his opponents it was a scandal. If he ganged up on Hillary with Obama it was enough to make his supporters weep (my own mother, an ardent Edwards supporter immediately switched to Hillary after that night. How many Obama supporters have ever complained when their candidate criticized Hillary?)

John Edwards was the man whose campaign was too exalted to compete on an earthly plane, and therefore his campaign was deemed the most likely to become the memory of John Brown that lead Union forces to victory. One of my journals from last year went something like I know John Edwards can not win, but it is terribly important that he is running. A whole bunch of people agreed with me---until he started taking actual vote and delegates from Obama and Hillary. Then he had to be forced out. His campaign was never meant to win the election. It was meant to win the martyrdom.


The last campaign journal was written immediately after New Hampshire. As expected, Hillary was not congratulated on her win. Women who challenge men in this country as not praised. They are denounced:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/republican-nati.html

The Republican National Committee has released this character assassination video that targets Hillary Clinton just moments after the results were called for the Democratic presidential contender in the New Hampshire primary.
It's just the latest online salvo the committee has fired off against Clinton. The committee has spent the past few months building up the negative narrative online about the candidate among its base.

Here you can see a Republican rep denounce Hillary as deceitful, deceptive and ambitious for the crime of winning in New Hampshire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=176Ab1mWrhE

Here is the journal I wrote, called Mother Hillary in which I suggested that Hillary Clinton’s support comes from Americans who see her as representative of the goddess or matriarchy tradition in the New World. This is problematic, because there is an equally strong woman-hating tradition in America.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/121

The Obama camp claimed that Hillary and her women won New Hampshire by trickery due to campaign mailings in which they contrasted his “present votes” on abortion measures to Hillary’s strong votes for reproductive rights. Chris Matthews claimed (without proof) that Hillary’s New Hampshire win was illegitimate because voters in that state were racist. And Robert Koehler of Tribune Media Services got DU in an uproar---and made Obama supporters hate Hillary Clinton by telling a big fat lie. You probably do not even remember it now, but that is ok, because I recognized it as 95% likely to be bullshit as it was happening, and so I recorded it in its own special journal.

Koehler claimed that he was going to have a story in the next day’s Tribune Newspapers in which he was going to call out the Hillary camp for e-vote fraud in New Hampshire. Now, if true, that would have been a really big deal. The first major newspaper in the US to take a stand that an election had been hijacked by e-vote fraud and Hillary Clinton named as the suspect.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/120

Koehler: First of all, before we get too enthusiastic about feminist solidarity or wax knowingly about New Hampshire Democrats’ traditional soft-heartedness toward the Clinton family, let’s ponder yet again the possibility of tainted results, which is such an unfun prospect most of the media can’t bear to remember that all the problems we’ve had with electronic voting machines — and Diebold machines in particular, which dominate New Hampshire polling places — remain unsolved.

Snip

That said, I acknowledge taking wary heart in Obama’s remarkable road to national prominence and (hypothesizing fair elections) his reasonable shot at the Democratic presidential nomination. He is energizing African-Americans and many other disaffected voters, and just maybe, as he ascends to the highest levels of power, he really intends to represent them.

Only, his claim that the Tribune papers were going to public his conjectures turned out to be a big fat media lie. Plus, feminist solidarity was exactly why New Hampshire went for Hillary. I deduced as much in “Mother Hillary” when I realized how many Irish-Americans live in that state.

When Obama won Iowa, the news media’s reaction was “Obama won Iowa”. When Hillary won New Hampshire, the news media’s and the Obama camp’s and a bunch of Democrat’s and even the Republican’s reaction was “She cheated!” Without any proof at all. Even untra-lefty Kucinich came forward and demanded a recount so that he could catch the evil witch Hillary in the act of cheating. Why?
And no, it isn’t because she had a history of cheating in elections. What got all these men so hot and bothered about the first woman winning a first United States presidential primary?

Alexis De Tocqueville found that gender roles were rigidly defined in the United States in the 19th century. Funny thing about his Democracy in America Much of what was true one hundred fifty years ago is still true now.

http://www.unlessthelordmagazine.com/articles/a_perspective_from_the_past.htm

"America is the one country where the most consistent care has been taken to trace clearly distinct spheres for the two sexes and where both are required to walk at an equal pace but along paths that are never the same. You do not see American women directing concerns outside the range of the family, or handling business dealings, or entering politics. Neither do you see any women forced to face the rough work of plowing fields, nor any of those heavy tasks which demand the exertion of physical strength. No family is so poor that it forms the exception to this rule." …
snip

"Consequently, American women who display a quite manly intelligence and energy generally maintain very delicate features and always remain feminine in their ways even though they sometimes show they have the hearts and minds of men."…
"Nor have Americans ever imagined that the result of democratic principle would be to overturn a husband’s authority or to introduce any ambiguity about who is in charge in the family."

…
This applied only to White citizen women, of course. Minority and immigrant women worked as hard as their men. White women were also treated as chattel with draconian rape laws which were used to oppress the working classes---especially minorities or immigrant groups---which could be targeted at any time as sources of violence which threatened the virtue of White women.

American has good reason for wanting to keep its White women uneducated, subservient and chaste. It helps them keep the working class oppressed by creating a fictive need for “law and order” to quiet an equally fictive fear of disorder and violence caused by those agitating for change. And since we entered the industrial age, women have added to the low paid work force. The last thing it wants is to see them winning presidential primaries which might give the lie to the claim that they are frail flowers that need protection from Blacks or Latinos or Muslims—and the lie to the claim that they only need half wages since their husbands support them. So, a woman like Hillary has to be labeled unnatural, a freak, a “monster”.

Recall again what Barthes wrote about the uses of myth. “Men do not have with myth a relationship based upon truth but on use ; they depoliticize according to their needs. “ We do not necessarily promote the myths that seem most true. Often the elite and its lackey press and our political parties make a conscience decision to create propaganda that becomes a kind of popular myth which makes us forget the real connection between human beings and the world. They do this because they have their own special needs which almost invariably involve accumulating more wealth and power.
Here are some of the woman hating myths that the press, Democrats and the Obama camp draws upon to portray Hillary as a she-demon:

Hillary as the Great Whore This one is straight from our Puritan ancestors. That’s right. It doesn’t matter if Randi Rhodes thinks she is a progressive. When she calls Hillary a “whore” she is doing just what Cotton Mather would have done all those centuries ago. The Great Whore was a derogatory term used for the Virgin Mother of the Church of Rome. I will get into Catholics’ support for Hillary later. Just as some see her as the earthly equivalent of Mother Mary who will listen to our pleas and intercede for us with the uncaring men in suits in Congress and the Courts, so a whole bunch of protestant secular types have fits at the thought of a woman wielding any kind of power. Women, in their opinion, are good for only one thing. Procreating. If a woman achieves a position of power, she must have fucked someone to do it. Hillary haters will say that she screwed Bill Clinton to get to the top, even as they insist that she is frigid and a Lesbian.

Hillary as Medusa: the stare I like this one from Comedy Central
http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/04/09/hillarys-blue-steel-of-doom/

Of course he didn't. How could he? Hillary, that cunning laserist, amplified her powers by propping her chin in her hand and refusing to blink. It is a miracle she didn't leave singe marks on the Senate chamber wall.
In this undeclared war between the candidates, there was no stronger weapon at Clinton's disposal than the Stare. In the first Democratic debates, Obama seemed visibly uncomfortable with being the object of Clinton's gaze, and avoided eye contact.
But there were nine ageing white males between McCain and Clinton -- including his great friend and fellow supporter of the Iraq war, senator Joe Lieberman -- which perhaps diluted its power.
Yes, only a doughy mass of ageing white males can block the deadly impact of Hillary's Stare.
That is because its energy comes from her vagina.

Hillary as Wicked Witch of the West: the cackle
Whole page of links from Media Matter. Have any of the male candidates from either party been trashed for so long over something this ridiculous? I hope that those criticizing the Hillary campaign as being unable to assume the executive office realize that the press has been focusing almost non stop on bullshit issues like this for the last 16 months. What’s next? Critique of the pitch of her voice? Only a baritone can make treaties?
We all know who defeats Wicked Witches, right? Young hero-kings. Go-Obama!
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710040003

Hillary as Circe: the cleavage
Oh yes, they did. In one day alone, MSNBC spent 23 minutes talking about the Senator’s cleavage. I haven’t seen anyone check out a male politician’s package since W.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708010003

http://books.google.com/books?id=xKr9U_m7z04C&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=woman+seductress+cleavage&source=web&ots=phbSe1GdGd&sig=Ky5sQw1SI0PSlKP9dMwU-osF3qM&hl=en
Interesting read. If you show cleavage, you are a seductress, which means that a “determined and calculating woman” is waging a “military campaign”. So, what does it mean if Obama has his picture taken swimming with his shirt off?

Hillary as lying succubus: the tears
I am not even going to bother citing links. Just look around DU. Everyone will tell you that Hillary does not have real emotions. (Apparently women with real emotions do not steal presidential primaries from men). She only cries fake tears to seduce people into voting for her, because she is one of the devil’s minions. Guess what? This is a classic sexist myth about women.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/fow/fow26.htm

The propensity for a woman to shed tears on the slightest emotion has long been the subject of frequent comment in proverbial literature, and, according to Ricard, "Women never weep more bitterly than when they weep with spite."

Hillary is a castrating bitch Remember all those old myths in which the goddesses would castrate their old husband-gods before a new god assumed the throne? Or how the priests of ancient goddesses were often eunuchs?

I was going to use the Hillary Nut Cracker as an example, and then I found this friendly fire from Talking Points Memo.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/187620.php

“Full Firing? Or Just Gelded?” (About Penn)

Hillary Dearest: Medea You know, the one who killed Jason’s children out of spite because he dumped her.
Remember when Chris Matthews said that Hillary wanted to murder the Obama campaign in its crib like a SIDs? Or all those right wing pundits on FOX that swore that Hillary would attack Obama just like the evil woman she is? Poor little Obama. No wonder his supporters hate her so much. She is such a bad mother! Shame on her!

Hillary is a liar
Look what I found. Pop psychology trying to prove in the most unscientific way possible that women lie more than men

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2008/03/do-women-lie-more.html
Someone ran an ad and interviewed self professed women who lie and wrote a book about it to show that women lie, lie, lie from morning, noon to night. Yep, that cinches it. Women are definitely the lying sex. Now, how does something like that get published? Because some guys at St. Martin’s Press think that a lot of Americans want to hear it. What do people want to hear? Confirmation of the myths which they hold dear.

For every one of Hillary’s falsehoods, I can find one for Obama, but that will not change the perception among the members of the press, among Democrats and especially among Obama supporters that Hillary is a liar , because popular mythology tells them that women lie in order to get their way, because women have no true power. If a women beats a man in a contest in one of the traditionally male arenas of life, it must be because she has cheated. We all know that. The myths tell us so.

Four months have passed since I wrote my impressions of the mythic qualities of each campaign. As I predicted, the John Edwards’ Campaign was spectacularly martyred. He did not just withdraw from the race. Everyone knows that the mainstream media did to him what Tweety said that Hillary would try to do to Obama---they strangled his campaign in its crib. John Edwards is now St. John Edwards the Media Martyr and the two remaining candidates are praying for his endorsement which carries the weight of a baptism.

The Hillary Clinton Campaign is subject to daily attacks from both the left and right, including members of her own Democratic Party on charges that all boil down to some version of traditional woman-hating as described above. She might as well be a practicing witch living in seventeenth century Europe. She is burned at the stake in a figurative sense every single day. If there were absolutely no other viable Democratic candidate and if she kept complaining about how this was a chore and a burden but “some one has to do it”, the Party would nod its head and commiserate. However, they will never forgive her for the sin of being a woman who actually wants to be the president. Ambition is admirable in a man and a sin in a woman. Aggressiveness is desirable in a man and ugly in a woman. Women first only applies to doors and lifeboats. In all the things that really matter, men get first pick. A woman who defeats a man is nothing but a castrating bitch, trying to belittle men’s accomplishments by showing that a woman can do it, too.

So, how can Hillary still be in the race? There is another strong tradition in the United States that has its own myths about women, the Catholic tradition. Catholics, whose Roman based religion incorporated Mediterranean Isis worship (popular in the early centuries AD) use Mary as an intermediary when they need to ask for divine assistance. Male deities are distant. Mary cares. Therefore, it is no wonder that Catholics tend to vote for Hillary Clinton, the candidate whom their mythology tells them is most likely to care. Check out this map of Catholic concentration in the US by states and compare it to states where Hillary has done well (keep in mind which states caucus and which ballot):
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/catholicism.htm

Some have seen Latino support for Hillary as an anti-Obama vote, however, it is more likely to be a pro-woman vote. Mexican immigrants, who look to the Virgin of Guadalupe for protection and solace, have little trouble imaging Hillary as a political leader for change. Keep in mind that the Virgin of Guadalupe is actually an Aztec Goddess who appeared to an enslaved Aztec priest. He was able to persuade the Spanish conquerors that she was the Mother of God. She was deified. Because of her native origins, the Aztecs were converted but never quite assimilated. Instead, several centuries later, when Mexico waged its war of independence from Spain, it marched under the banner of the Virgin of Guadalupe, their own goddess. This makes the female principle the spirit of the people and of change for many Mexicans who revere her more than Jesus.

Then there are assorted groups with matriarchal traditions like the Irish and some Native Americans. Island religions such as that of Haiti have goddesses. Hindus are polytheistic, with deities of both sexes.

And of course, just as there are many Blacks who support Obama because he will be the first African-American president, there are a number of feminists who support Hillary because they want to see the first woman president. So, gender is a tremendous asset to Hillary Clinton---and it is a tremendous liability to Hillary Clinton. You only have to look at the statistics of reported rapes and domestic violence against women (much of it goes unreported ) to know that this country takes out its repressed anger on women.

In the case of Obama, being the anointed hero-king is a very good thing with almost no disadvantages. Since the day his delegate total surpassed Hillary’s his supporters have been declaring him the winner and they have demanded that Hillary drop out. Neither candidate can win without Super delegates, but a Hillary win with Super delegates has been declared “cheating” while an Obama win with Super delegates has been deemed inevitable, the way things were meant to be. This, despite the fact that Super delegates were introduced after 1972 so that the Party could “correct” the voters if they chose another unelectable like George McGovern. Everyone knows this, but how could a mythic hero-king possibly lose? He even made something crawl up Chris Matthews' leg, and that guy only shills for Republicans.

The press and much of the Party leadership in Congress (the male leadership) has been willing to accept this version of things. Yes indeed, Obama is the winner. He looks like the winner. He acts like the winner. His campaign shows the signs of being a winning campaign according to both classic and modern mythology. His win is all but foretold. That means that every time he does not win, the press and Democrats and his supporters have to rush forward to explain that Hillary’s win in some primary is illegitimate. And the fact that he has not sown up the nomination can not be his fault. His is the hero-king after all. So, it must be the evil bitch-witch-whore's fault. She must have lied or used her laser beam stare.

Being the hero-king gives his campaign the ability to rise from the grave. Recall that when Fox played the Wright tapes, the press reaction was How will Obama overcome this? When everyone is waiting for you to slay the beast, chances are the you will slay the beast, especially if the act of slaying the beast is all in the eyes of the beholder. The same press keeps declaring the Hillary campaign dead over minor issues that no one will remember in a month. Ding dong the witch is dead---we hope

The last president with the ability to deflect GOP dirty tricks that effectively was Bill Clinton, and he also fit Otto Rank’s criteria for the hero---son of a broken home, defender of his mother against injustice, constantly looking for a father figure, raised in lowly circumstances but with a natural ability that shown out and enabled him to defeat an old ogre-king (Bush Sr.). It was probably inevitable that when Obama and Clinton met on the political battlefield in South Carolina, sparks would fly. Obama supporters are going to just hate me for saying this, but charismatic, pragmatic Teflon coated Barack is the Big Dog for the 21st century.

That's it for my Democratic Idol report. The Unity Ticket still looks like the best shot. All of America likes a woman as a help-mate and mother, even the ones who hate single women who achieve greatness on their own, and Hillary's core supporters just adore her. I mean, doesn't this just tug at your heart strings?



Some music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcNL7W0vsF4

Words & music by paul simon

No I would not give you false hope
On this strange and mournful day
But the mother and child reu-nion
Is only a motion away, oh, little darling of mine.
I cant for the life of me
Remember a sadder day
I know they say let it be
But it just dont work out that way
And the course of a lifetime runs
Over and over again

No I would not give you false hope
On this strange and mournful day
But the mother and child reu-nion
Is only a motion away, oh, little darling of mine.

I just cant believe its so,
And though it seems strange to say
I never been laid so low
In such a mysterious way
And the course of a lifetime runs
Over and over again

But I would not give you false hope
On this strange and mournful day
When the mother and child reu-nion
Is only a motion away,
Oh, oh the mother and child reunion
Is only a motion away
Oh the mother and child reu-nion
Is only a moment away

[cornermouse]

1. Hillary as Medusa?

I know that stare. I used to use it all the time. It's called the mommy stare and is used most often to make your child stop whatever it is that they're doing, sit down and straighten up.

That said, I miss John Edwards. Other than not getting out of Iraq tomorrow, his positions on issues were closest to what I think should be adopted. Apparently some unknown person or people in some unknown location (maybe in one of Cheney's bunkers?) disagreed and saw fit to torpedo him.

I'm convinced Obama, should he get the nomination is setting himself up for the familiar ring of "flip-flopper" and "fake" among other things. I'll let the republicans invent their own snap phrases but I have to admit I've seen a few things that I suspect I will probably hear.

The type of personal attacks on Hillary here on DU are something that I never thought I would see. Rove, himself, couldn't do a better job or ask for anything that I haven't seen here. A lot of the time they don't bother to worry about the issues, the attacks are personal in nature. They've even extended their attacks to Chelsea for the major crime of supporting her mother. I think most of those posts can be condensed into "HOW DARE SHE SAY ANYTHING NICE OR POSITIVE ABOUT HER MOTHER" and I just can't stop shaking my head every time I see it.

Even though the River of Denial runs deep, I see a lot of misogynism on a regular basis on DU and it really highlights the mistake we've made by not continuing to push ERA. The current rename and expansion of ERA has been a mistake similar to what Obama is now doing in his appeal to all voters of all political parties for all reasons. Both are doomed to failure. The women's organizations need to get back to the basics and back to ERA. Er, sorry. I seem to have gotten a little off track here.

[susankh4]

2. Medusa is a heroine of mine!

Bring her on, I say. The Man-stream media needs a little freezing.

[polmaven]

8. I LOVE it..

The Man-stream media

That is GREAT!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[InfiniteNether]

3. No, I don't hate you Mr. Taylor. In fact, I enjoy reading your posts.

Might I suggest that you make your posts a wee bit shorter, though. I think you can reach more people that way. I read the whole thing; I think most readers just skim through. Everybody likes their soundbites.

[lefty2000]

6. I Read The Whole Thing Too

Although I did not intend to.

But I got hooked and before I knew it, I was all the way to the end. I have read some of Joseph Campbell's stuff and I think it sheds light on the way people think and behave. The OP seems to be applying the same kind of analysis to our contemporary political scene.

[InfiniteNether]

4. About New Hampshire

"Even ultra-lefty Kucinich came forward and demanded a recount so that he could catch the evil witch Hillary in the act of cheating. Why?" Mr. Taylor, I find it hard to believe that you think that Dennis Kucinich demanded a recount because he dislikes Hillary. Mr. Kucinich demanded a recount because of these irregularities:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010908_widespread_fraud.htm

The article isn't a bash on Hillary. It's a bash on who controls the voting machines. No one who follows e-voting believes that Hillary could have done it. She doesn't control the companies.

[DFW]

5. Try: Political Idol (there really is such a thing!)

www.political-idol.com

...and check out the clips. These people do a great job of putting it into perspective.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. Just rewatched "Wag the Dog" everyone should see it again. The whole Bush

presidency is in there. One of the Bush family favorite strategies to cover up scandal is to create a distraction. For instance, Israel invaded Lebanon on the day that everyone knew Valerie Plame would have to file her civil suit against Cheney because of the statute of limitations (only someone must have tipped off Wilson because he announced it the day before the deadline). The newspapers scheduled the announcement of the recount of Florida votes for just after 9/11 when Condi has admitted she knew there would be a terrorist attack. The invasion of Iraq was timed to cover up the release of the FERC report that finally admitted that there was a price gouging in California (which Ken Lay's hand picked FERC allowed and which Bush facilitated and for which no one has been charged).

And who can forget the one who was left behind? Old Shoe? No, Jessica Lynch.

This is a great study in how campaigns use myth to create the appearance of truth where none exists.

[JimGinPA]

7. "The Mother and Child Reunion" Was A Paul Simon Song About A Chicken & Egg Breakfast...

I found this picture online, and it's been said one picture is worth a thousand words.

[Straight Shooter]

9. Joseph Campbell would be proud.

Well done, McCamy. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Too bad someone had to drop in with PhotoShopped pics. From the leader comes the inspiration for the action, I suppose.

[papau]

10. An excellent insightful post - as always - I wish you were part of our national media -this analysis

is the type of thing I would listen to "progressive" media for back when "progressive" media was not into Hillary bashing and ignoring sexism and Obama race card playing.

Logic and memory are in short supply - not only on DU but also in the General population. As I recall from the 52 election, a supporter told Stevenson (who was a white Obama) that that he was sure to "get the vote of every thinking man" in the U.S., to which Stevenson is said to have replied, "Thank you, but I need a majority to win.". I call Adlai Stevenson a white Obama because of his eloquent oratory and thoughtful, stylish demeanor - which thrilled the intellectuals,members of the nation's academic community, and the rest of the "Starbucks" crowd.

His two runs taught me that whenever we run the "Starbucks" crowd's choice, we lose, because the working-class Democrats can not relate as well to that personality as they can to other personalities/story lines.