Katrina L. Rogers: Look at the bigger picture

Published 5/23/2008

"If Clinton wins, I'm not voting in November."

"If Obama gets the nomination, he's not getting my vote."

These are comments I've been hearing a lot lately from Democrats who are quite dedicated to their candidate of choice.

Dedication, I understand. But what I don't understand is why people have been moved to support one person so much that it's almost impossible for them to imagine supporting another in the general election if their chosen candidate doesn't win.

I honestly think it's great that people are so involved with the process this year and — seemingly — even more so invested in his or her candidate of choice. But what I don't understand is why people seem to forget that although Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are two different candidates, their policies are almost identical when you compare them to those of John McCain.

In 2000, the saying was "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." This year, maybe it should be "if you don't support your party's nominee, you're supporting the opponent."

I'm talking to the women who have vowed to support Clinton at all costs, even if it means not supporting Obama if he wins the nomination. Well, the flaw in that logic is that both Clinton and Obama are pro-choice — an option a McCain-appointed Supreme Court Justice would likely ban.

I'm talking to the people who have decided they will not vote for Obama if, for some reason, Clinton does not win the nomination. The problem is many of these people believe — with all of their hearts — that McCain is void of the competency and compassion needed to be a good leader.

McCain has openly discussed his ignorance when it comes to the economy and how he is "fine" with Americans staying in Iraq for 100 years. He has repeatedly voted against raising minimum wage, he wants to continue giving the wealthy tax cuts at the expense of the middle-class, and he consistently votes against reproductive rights.

McCain says we're better off now than we were eight years ago.

I understand that many people support his stance on these issues; but to the people who don't, doesn't it just make sense to vote for the person with whom you're more ideologically in sync?

I've even heard — several times — that people shouldn't support Obama because Clinton is the only candidate who can beat McCain. I say, well, if she's not going to win her party's nomination, how exactly can she win the general election in November?

This isn't like when the Dixiecrats became their own separate entity; for the most part, there just isn't a radical difference between a number of policies Obama and Clinton both present.

Their histories, backgrounds, approaches are different but I think — in a number of ways — they're both interested in helping a broad range of Americans, something that hasn't happened lately.

So, although I am not telling anyone — explicitly — how to vote one way or the other, I do ask that each of you look at the bigger picture and think of who will more likely play a part in creating your ideal America when you vote in November.

Katrina L. Rogers: All descriptions aside, Obama has the votes

Published 5/9/2008

If you happened to miss it, the new wave of Hillary Clinton praise is based on her "testicular fortitude." So the woman who has come closest in American history to become president is an honorary man because she supposedly has gumption, strength or something of that nature.

I'll briefly take my womanist stance and say that notion is a bit sexist.

Since when did womanhood become an antonym of strength and courage? And why is it a compliment to honor a woman by awarding her with manly body parts?

When Sen. Clinton comes to mind, I can think of a number of adjectives to describe her — none of which have a thing to do with anatomy.

Typically, when one person in a two-person race is being praised for having something, it's implied that the opponent lacks that — virtue. So while people were praising Clinton on her extraordinary traits, they — in turn — questioned Obama's manhood.

Clinton advisor and CNN correspondent James Carville was very clear about questioning Obama's "completeness" by saying of Clinton, "If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two."

In all honesty, Barack Obama can't afford to ooze of machismo. He can't be all that audacious. He can be but only so acidic with his words. Why, you ask?

Research Emmett Till.

And while verbally castrating someone is nowhere near as damaging as physically doing the deed, it all stems from the same place. No tread is light enough and no kid gloves are soft enough to remove the elephant from the room.

It's there. It'll be there. We may be able to walk around it, but it's staring at us begging for attention. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright briefly placed the spotlight on it, but people were quickly able to move the elephant to another corner.

I am positive the elephant will hit center stage, wearing a tutu and second lining by the time the general election rolls around.

Such irony in the fact that Sen. Clinton wanted to show us that you don't need testicles to become president of the United States and her "gonad-less" opponent may prove her right after all — because at the end of the day, Clinton may have the "conjones" but Obama is the one with the votes.

Small Piece on Non-Profit Orgs