Barack Obama and the Politics of Dignity

Barack Obama is offering Americans dignity, and they're grabbing it with both hands. Dignity permeates his speeches, informs his policies, and is evident in his manner. Whether he intended to or not, Obama has become a herald of the politics of dignity.

But dignity for whom? For blacks and whites, for men and women, for gays and straights, for young and old, for rich and poor, and for immigrants and the native-born. Obama also reaches out to both sides of the aisle -- liberals and conservatives -- and to other nations and their leaders. Americans, eager to move beyond the fractiousness of identity politics and to end the standoff between libertarian and egalitarian ideologies, are lining up in support. They are ready for a leader committed to building a world of dignity for all.

What exactly is the dignity that people crave? It's more than good manners, respect, and civility. It's the absence of indignity. The American people know that indignities inflicted on the world have diminished America's stature. They know that the indignities they and their fellow citizens are suffering at home are sapping the American spirit.

Barack Obama's campaign has been called a "phenomenon," one with the potential to swell into a movement. But to realize its promise, a movement must evolve from a call for change to a plan for removing the obstacles that stand in the way of that change. How can the energy that has crystallized around Obama's candidacy be effectively focused to fight the indignities of everyday life?

As the history of the women's movement shows, a movement can't deliver without identifying what it's against. The introduction of the word "sexism" provided the lens that brought gender inequity into focus and made it indefensible.

To fight back against indignity, we need to root out what causes it. The cause of indignity is not power, nor is it power differences. It is rather the abuse of power. To oppose indignity, we do not have to eliminate differences in power, nor the differences in rank that merely reflect them.

Rank is a useful tool of organization. When it's exercised with proper regard for the dignity of subordinates, we not only accept rank differences, we celebrate the people whose accomplishments have earned our respect. No one is more admired or loved than someone of high rank who treats everyone, regardless of rank, with dignity.

But, abuses of rank have no place in a dignitarian world and must go. Taking a page from the women's movement, if we are to combat such abuses effectively, we must first give them a name. Fortunately, there's a word at hand. By analogy with racism, sexism, and ageism, abuse of the power inherent in rank is rankism. Once named, you see it everywhere.

The outrage over corrupt executives is indignation over rankism. Sexual abuse by clergy is rankism. Elder abuse in life care facilities is rankism. The power of lobbyists to subvert the people's will is rankism. Photos of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners gave the world a look at rankism's arrogant face. Hurricane Katrina made visible rankism's most common victims -- the sick, the elderly, the poor.

Like racism, rankism has its most debilitating impact on those lacking the protections of social rank -- the poor. And nowhere is rankism more dangerous than in foreign relations. International terrorism has multiple, complex causes, but one factor we can address is rankism between nations. There is no fury like that borne of chronic humiliation. Senator Obama understands that a vital part of a strong defense is not giving offense in the first place.

Rankism distorts personal relationships, erodes the will to learn, taxes economic productivity, and stokes international enmities. The effects on its victims are like those of racism and sexism on minorities and women. But, unlike these better-known isms, rankism knows no limits and plays no favorites. So long as anyone's dignity is at risk, everyone's is. With its inclusiveness, Obama's politics of dignity has struck a chord.

Before they'll march for justice, people will stand up for dignity. Obama has got them on their feet, and that's a start. The next step--building a dignitarian society -- is the work of several generations, but the hopes for a peaceful and prosperous twenty-first century rest on our taking it.

Robert W. Fuller is the author of All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity (2006). He is co-author, with Pamela Gerloff, of Dignity for All: Rankism Unmasked (forthcoming, Spring 2008).

Comments

[Knute]

Outstanding post and a very useful formulation for defining what it is that so many Americans are looking for -- dignity. Dignity in our discourse, respect for our dignity, and especially mutual respect for the dignity of those with whom we disagree.

Almost all Americans want what's best for our country. On that we can all agree. Our disagreements thus center more on the means and not the ends. Since we share the same ultimate goal (peace and prosperity), can't we disagree over the means without questioning the motives, or patriotism, or parentage of our opponents?

The same principle applies internationally. To paraphrase Sting: The Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese, and Russians love their children too. We may disagree (vehemently at times) with their leaders, but there is never any reason to demonize their people as freedom hating, children beating, puppy killing subhumans.

In short, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Thank you for providing a coherent lexicon for this very basic idea.

[ltfcrazy]

Thank you for that post. It was hard to put words to why I want Obama to be our president so badly. I couldn't even explain it to myself. It wasn't just that he was the smartest or the best orator. He has something that the other candidates don't, dignity. No matter what anyone says to him or how rancorous they are, he remains dignified and refuses to insult the other person's dignity. I loved it when Hillary railed on about not electing a president just because they were likable and he told her she was likable enough Some thought it was snarky, but he didn't insult her. He kept his dignity by not playing the put down game and he's still keeping it after all this time. When someone charges him or a supporter with something he promptly answers to it without assuming the rest of the world is dumb enough to buy a lie. I hope he's right. I hope enough Americans have enough self respect and respect for others to give him the votes he needs to represent our country. I sincerely hope that rankism doesn't ruin this world the way it has been for centuries. We need to move past who gets to tell who what. We need to start asking what we can all do together to git er done.

[TinaFreeman]

Thank you for a great post.

[jake1az]

Question....Why did Obama lie about the amount of money he received from Rezko for his political use...

[ltfcrazy]

He didn't, he recalculated. Question....why does Hillary hide everything?

[lafrance]

Good article. It's amazing that it's the old people from the women's movement who are now trying to suffocate and destroy this movement for dignity for all.
I have personally never seen so much energy, positiveness and hope and inspiration as I've seen this past year in the ever growing support for Obama.
Those against Obama are in fear. They fear the empowerment of the people, the uni ting over division and the man who wants all people to have diginity. The powers that be fear him taking away their power and for him to have it. And for him to use it for good and not bad like those in power now do.
But, you cannot stop a movement and yes, the Obama campaign has grown into a movement.

[nevadakid]

Dump the Clinton"s-- NOW!

Every Democratic Party platform embraces tolerance and embraces diversity and eschews racism and bigotry. Senator Barack Obama has been the victim of vicious, hateful, racist, religiously bigoted email and whisper campaigns. Senator Clinton"s campaign has on multiple occasions aided and abetted this attack. Several Clinton campaign officials, including Bill Clinton, have attempted to malign Obama"s reputation. When given a chance to "denounce and reject" the hateful email campaign, Senator Clinton qualified her response ("not that I know of") just enough to stoke the suspicions of those who stand gullibly ready to believe the email slander.
Senator Clinton compounded the insult and injury by effectively endorsing John McCain over Barack Obama. Beyond making a great attack ad for the GOP, she has eliminated her own ability to campaign for Senator Obama when he becomes the Democratic nominee.
So, is there any principle the Democratic Party loves more than it loves the Clintons? What does the Democratic Party stand for?

Decision time Democrats: Hope for Change with Obama or keep rolling in the mud with the Clintons.

In the wake of her comments of the last week, Senator Hillary Clinton should abandon her Presidential Campaign. In fact she should probably resign her Senate seat. Endorsing the Republican candidate over Senator Obama and casting aspersions on Senator Obama's patriotism and religion are tactics we expect from certain Republican political advisers. We do not expect them someone who would ask us to vote for her for President.

A petition made by Obama supporters to be sent to the DNC
stating that if Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic Nominee for
the presidential election, you will either:
a) abstain from voting in the general election
or
b) a third-party-candidate during the general election.
Here's the link: http://www.petitiononline.com/obama725/petition.html

[bastrop]

Thanks for giving a name to the rise of a potential movement. Respect and dignity is so lacking in our discourse and relationships with each other and the world. We really need a new way.

[PKSSK]

Accurate and truthful portrayal of our next President, a man of great character and dignity!!!

[Alessan]

YOUR next President is a phony and a creep. Heaven help this country.

[Knute]

Alessan,

Checked out your profile and read some of your other posts. Of course you're free to write whatever you choose with any tone you choose, but I don't think the angry rhetoric and name calling helps to move our national conversation forward. Robert Fuller (and Barack Obama, for that matter) are advocating a more mutually respectful and conciliatory dialogue that actually holds out the hope of America (or at least a majority of Americans) beginning to move forward together again.

Disagreement is invaluable in a democracy, but it doesn't have to be disagreeable.

[Aaror]

YOUR candidate (who won't be president even if she knocks Obama off) is far more of a phony, and far creepier. And if Obama isn't the next President, even Heaven won't be able to save us.
Look at the decline of the US currency. A dollar is now worth less than a Canadian Dollar, less than 100 yen! We have a national debt of almost 10 trillion dollars, national credit card debt of almost a trillion, and the national mortgage debt went up by almost that amount this year.
The mortgage debt is especially scary because US property values are trending 75% above historical norms. This means that whatever your house is worth, 3/7ths of is is phantom gains. Now take 4/7ths of your house value, and compare it to your outstanding mortgage (or mortgages), if the mortgages are higher, you are in the red!
Those scary forclosure rates? Those are the tip of the iceberg, and meanwhile people continue to borrow like there is no tomorrow.
To survive as a nation, we are going to have to completely change the way we live, and that is going to take a leader, not a politician. That is why we need Obama, not Clinton. Hope is all we have left, and just like Pandora, we are going to have to pray that it is worth it.

[rjax]

I wonder if Rev Wright was one of the great Marines that served his country and had to go to the "Colored Only" drinking fountain

[OxyCon]

From my front porch, Obama is a magical entity that morphs into the fondest wishes of his beholders.

I really do not think there was a whole lot of dignity to all of the character attacks Obama has leveled on Hillary Clinton and the underhanded ways his campaign has targeted associates of Hillary as racists, conveniently after every one of his electoral losses. Especially when you consider that the only outrage Obama had showed against "so-called" racist statements was against his opponent, but never against Reverend Wright¦until Rev Wright"s anti-American and anti-White statements became an issue. This shows without a doubt that Obama has a very convenient outrage about racism. He feigns outrage against his opponent and remains silent and continues to have a 20 year relationship with a confirmed racist.

Does calling Hillary (D) Punjab sound dignified to you?
Does Obama attacking Hillary over NAFTA (conveniently while in Ohio) while his campaign is telling Canada not to believe his words (just words) sound dignified to you?
Does Obama"s direct denials (some call them lies) of his campaigns involvement with Canada sound dignified to you?
Does Obama"s "Harry & Louis" lying attack ads sound dignified to you?
Does Obama"s creation of Spanish language ads calling Hillary "shameless", which is considered a slur against females in the Latino community, sound dignified to you?
Does Obama"s attacks where he deliberately tries to diminish and demean all of Hillary"s accomplishments sound dignified to you?
Does Obama"s attacks on Hillary"s openness, when he won"t even release his Illinois Senate records, or the records on his Rezko dealings sound dignified to you?
Does Obama"s dishonest attack on Hillary, where he accuses her of releasing a photo of him in traditional African garb, while he"s standing before a large audience of Black Americans (even though the story was debunked weeks ago and Obama had even acknowledged that Hillary had nothing to do with it) sound dignified to you?
Does Obama"s sexist attacks on Hillary, where he accuses her of having mood swings and "clawing" him sound dignified to you?

I don"t think I need to go on to show that calling Obama a "Dignitarian" is a bunch of horsehockey.

P.S. If you have answered "yes" to all these questions seek medical help immediately.

[greejambri]

Typical Clinton spin. Blame your opponent for your very own characters flaws. Look it up in any basic psychology text - it's called projection, and Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have it down to a science.

[RButler]

That's funny. You're doing exactly that. You're projecting. The Obamatons have been projecting 'racism' on the Hillary campaign since New Hampshire.

[RichLiberal]

Obama has done more to polarize the electorate in this election than has ever been done before. He started his campaign on age discrimination of his GenX Republican appeasers vs the Baby Boomers to whom he advised that their time was past and their old tired ideas no longer relevant. This has clearly been reflected in the voting trends as older voters have heavily leaned toward Clinton as Obama drops hints that Social Security needs to be "fixed".

His contemptuous attitude toward women in general has also been picked up in the voting trends.

He further has tried to associate himself with "wealthier" and more "intelligent" voters, although his claims in this area are more hype than fact.

Obama's support is primarily from academia plus a heavy Afro-American vote. He has leveraged academia to stir up college campuses and win delegates far out of proportion to his real electoral influence. Clearly he has bullied the Afro-American community to vote for him as a matter of loyalty and tried to destroy the Clintons well-earned respect in the A-A community.

Working people across the board have voted for Hillary as evidenced by her astonishing success despite a full court attack on her by the MSM up until the SNL skit a couple of weeks ago.

The states Hillary has won account for 263 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win the Nov election. If she wins PA then she will probably end up with 300-325 electoral votes from the Dem primaries.

How does one account for her being in such a bad position in delegate count, despite having won virtually the whole Democratic base of support? Clearly, Obama has had a clever caucus strategy with his college legions dominating these unrepresentative contests. In fact, Obama has beaten Hillary by approximately 150 delegates, 300+ to 150+ in caucus states amounting to virtually his whole lead. These were also obtained primarily in red states with no chance of Nov electoral Dem votes.

Despite this one would think Hillary would still be the favorite, but she is not. Why not? I believe the answer lies in the betrayal of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi to their base constituents. Both Kennedy and Pelosi come from states, Massachusetts and California that heavily voted for Hillary over Obama. Yet these two powerful Democrats have ignored the voters in their own states and pushed Obama to the fullest. WIthout this core support of the Democratic "leadership" in Congress, Obama would have been finished a long time ago.

It is time to hold Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi accountable for their thumbing their noses at their loyal constituents. Massachusetts and California voters must begin to demand answers from their elected leaders as to why they are going against the votes of their constituents.

[shano]

Excuse me. Your post leaves out the reality that Obama won Iowa-beating Hillary out of the gate in a white state. He did this by building coalitions and talking about the issues and how he solves problems, what the government needs to function, etc.

hillary is not the favorite because she has run a top down campaign. Obama is leading because he is bringing new people into the process, and his message is attracting alot of voters who would normally have supported Clinton.

Obama is a real leader on the relevant issues to Americans and that is the secret of his success. Nothing more, nothing less.

[RichLiberal]

The "secret" of Obama's success is that he has "gamed" the system to get delegates from parts of the US that are unrepresentative of the Democratic Party. As a result you have the base of the party voting for Clinton, while Obama has ginned up a small majority of delegates by clever campaign tactics in unrepresentative regions.

The big question is why the Congressional Leadership has ignored this fact and been leaning toward Obama. I think you will find in the House of Representatives that the vast majority of Democratic members come from states that have voted for Hillary as reflected in the fact that Hillary's states account for 263 of the necessary 270 electoral votes necessary to win in Nov, not counting PA where she is currently favored.

Kennedy and Pelosi have their own selfish agendas because they do not believe they would be sufficiently "influential" in another Clinton White House, because they were not the last time. They also choose to ignore the great economic success the Clintons had, which was their original campaign slogan: "It's the economy, Stupid". As a reminder, the Clintons turned trillions of dollars in accumulated Bush/Reagan deficits around to the point where we had strong surplusses in Clinton's final years, plus we had the strongest growth in American history from 1992-2000, plus the Clintons added 22.7 million jobs to the economy. The people who got those jobs and others who also benefitted from a strong employment economy are the base of the Democratic Party and they are voting for Clinton II.

Given the current mess the economy is in, thanks to Bush, one has to wonder what the hell Kennedy and Pelosi are doing trying to swing the nomination to Obama who has little economic experience of any substance, and what little he has, he misrepresents as testified by his own economic advisor in comments recorded by Canadian government officials.

[57andfemale]

Contemptuous view of women?!?!?! Because women fall in lock-step to "protect" Hillary from such inflammatory words as "periodically?" I'd be happy to support a feminist. A real feminist, one who doesn't over-inflate her credentials that she only developed because of the CLinton name. As a feminist, she disgusts me, and the blind fealty to her is no better or more informed than the wingnuts who adore Bush.

If she can't organize her people to run a caucus, after Obama won caucus after caucus, then maybe she's incompetent to run the government.

Hillary would be happy to scam any superdelegate from any state, letting them use their own judgment. Let's see you disavow those votes.

Hillary as the unitary executive -- all that power, all that secrecy. Has she come out against Bush's trashing of the COnstitution? Has she said she'll restore any of the rights we've lost? McCain doesn't give a damn. Hillary has been eerily silent. Obama will review every single executive order by the Madman in Chief and return honest checks and balances.

What would the press be saying if Hillary had won 14 our of 17 contests, had the lead in delegates, superdelegates and popular vote? You know damn well.

But that Obama has been disrespectful to women? Has Hillary been respectful to the black vote she squandered?

She is a monster. God help us with either her or McCain.

[RButler]

I did some arithmetic on the CA primary vs. the ID caucus. One (1) delegate in Idaho represents about 1200 actual voters while one delegate in California represents about 12,000 voters. So, there is a built in inequality in comparing primaries in large states with caucuses in small states. Although Obama has more delegates and total popular vote now, comparing the number of states he's won to Hillary's is misleading and I wish they wouldn't do it.


But, that's the rules as set up by the party. Also, the rules are that superdelegates can vote independently if no one reaches the 2025 threshold. They DO NOT have to vote for the one with the most popular votes. That is also the rule despite what the Obama campaign would like you to think. So, if the supers give the nod to Hillary, Obama says he's been playing by the rules and those are the rules. The purpose of the superdelegates is to vote for who is most electable and to prevent the party being taken over by something like the Obama campaign where republicans were allowed to vote in some states. They may truly support him or not. It's up to the supers to make that judgement.


Fuller says 'we celebrate those whose accomplishments have earned our respect'. Really, That hasn't been evident in the Obama campaign regarding the Clinton years in the '90s. That's been dismissed as being old and in the past despite a fairly successful 2 terms of peace and prosperity. Not everything was accomplished but it was pretty good. Obama doesn't seem to respect the rank of a successful 2 term Democratic former president, so Mr. Fuller's whole premise of rank with regard to Obama is somewhat lacking. However, Obama is endorsed by Ted Kennedy who was never nominated and John Kerry who lost his run in 2004. The Obama campaign IS a 'fairy tale' built on illusions that fall apart under close examination. Unity? By 'unity' does he mean unifying his supporters in their hatred of his opponent as anyone reading the comments on this site can see for themselves.

[Lisette]

Rich liberal, by what rationale do you conclude Obama is contemptious of woman?
You are talking like Bush. Just because you say it does not make it true.

[RichLiberal]

I will leave it to women to determine what is real sexism vs overblown paranoia. However, a quick scan of the Internet finds many comments along these lines:

http://lisalexicon.typepad.com/how_dare_she/2008/02/obamas-sexism-s.html

http://www.vanityfair.com/ontheweb/blogs/daily/2008/02/dee-dee-myers-t.html#more
"On Saturday, Merrill McPeak, a retired four-star general, former chief of staff of the United States Air Force, and senior advisor to the Obama campaign, said his candidate "doesn"t go on television and have crying fits," like you-know-who. The Obama campaign distanced itself from his remarks"as it damn well should have"but there was no outrage, no accusations that anyone was fanning sexist flames, no demands that they permanently sever their ties with the offender."

Here's a detail on the Illinois Senate "present" votes, where it appears Obama is less than straight on the "choice" political agenda:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/01/barack_obama_an.html

As far as "talking like Bush", have you noticed how often Obama uses the term "folks". This is one of Bush's key communication devices, inherited from Reagan, intended to falsely be one of the listeners while sticking it to the opponent - like us folks vs the demon.

For example: "I didn"t make the statement. I haven"t remarked on it, and she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King"s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act."
and "Now when I start talking like this, some folks tell me that I've got my head in the clouds. That I need a reality check. That we're still offering false hope. But my own story tells me that in the United States of America, there has never been anything false about hope."
"Now, I've heard that some folks aren't sure America is ready for an African-American president, so let me be clear: "
From here: http://thepriceoflife.com/?p=608
"In his stirring oratorical way he went on, "Because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they [his parents] got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." "

Bottom line is Obama is using Bush's rhetorical tricks to plant messages. You can be sure when you hear the phrase "some folks", he's softening you up for a message, usually one that's got a little dagger wrapped up inside.

[ladyhawkke]

Very well stated. Finally, someone makes sense. I'm calling those delegates and urge everyone else to call them and demand they support the wishes of their constituents. I consider Pelosi very jealous of Clinton and Ted Kennedy is a useless senator who should have retired years ago. How can he be a leader after Chappaquidick? I wouldn't want to be associated with either him or Kerry whom I also consider a turncoat since Hillary campaigned for him. They have no loyalty and are not to be trusted.

[greejambri]

Look, I know it's hard to accept, and I know how much you really don't want it to be true, but here it is: Barack Obama is ahead in votes, delegates, and states, and there is virtually NO CHANCE of Hillary Clinton catching him. Nancy Pelosi will announce on TV tomorrow (Sunday, March 16) that the superdelegates should uphold the will of the voters and line up behind the candidate ahead in pledged delegates. Time is running out, Clintonistas. It's all over but the crying.

[jakie]

JUST HEARD OBAMA SPEAK HE SPEAKS WITH DIGNITY AND CLASS HE ADDRESS THE PREACHER INCIDENT JUST RIGHT

[Looplinker]

There is a disturbing pattern emerging about Barak Obama. If only one incident had appeared it would not be much of a concern but the fact that there is a pattern gives one pause to consider exactly what kind of changes does he envisage.

Here is the pattern:
1) During the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance Obama does not place his right hand over his heart.
2) Michelle Obama states that only after the Iowa caucuses: "Was the first time she felt proud to be an American". This from a woman whose success may have depended on affirmative action " something that would have made me feel proud to be an American.
3) Now we hear and see his pastor (his spiritual advisor for 17 years) openly preach "God should damn America" and who openly supports Farrakan.

This is not guilt by association, it is guilt because of choice. Obama cannot claim that he did not know what his "uncle" was preaching. He did know, but still chose to remain in that congregation.

The pattern is clear enough. Ignore at your own peril.

[PTTY]

Americans do not place their hands over their heart during the singing of the

National Anthem. Didn't you learn that in school.

What about Pastor Hagee calling the Catholic religion "WHORE RELIGION", and "SATAN'S RELIGION"

At his Church School he was having BUY A SLAVE party.

McCain did not apologize for anything he has said. I forgot only Black People have to apologize.

[57andfemale]

So glad you open your junk mail but don't listen to the news:

He holds his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance. He does stand for the National Anthem, as taught by his WW II veteran grandfather.

Michelle was proud of the political process. That is what she meant.

The Pastor -- let's get hold of all the crooks who have ever done favors for the Clintons, paid Hillary's brother for pardons by Bill, the dictators who contribute to his foundation and build his library.

All you Great Patriots who live by fear and hate.

We will get the president we deserve. God help us.

[POINT84]

Yes but what people like you keep on doing is injecting your views without really coming out and saying them. Your paragraph above is pretentious and has an agenda.

Why is it so hard to come out and say what it is that you are worried about. If you believe Obama is a racist, then say it. And if that is too blunt, say I'm afraid that if Obama were to become president, he would give preferential treatment to only African Americans.

Instead people take this cowardice role of making little sly comments to formulate other people's opinions. Why wouldn't anyone in the media ask Obama if he like black people more than white? Why hasn't anyone in the MSM gone extensively through his senate record to make sure we are not electing a racist for president.

All this talk is absolutely ridiculous and is so insulting. WHY IS EVERYONE ASSUMING THAT BECAUSE OBAMA IS 'BLACK' THAT THERE IS A CHANCE HE EMPATHIZES WITH WRIGHT?..MORE IMPORTANTLY WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT A MAN WITH A WHITE MOTHER CAN NOT FIND THOSE WORDS OFFENSIVE.

[Namaimo]

Michelle Obama said, after Iowa that it was the first time she felt REALLY proud to be an American. The word REALLY was edited OUT of the sound bite, by Faux News and the other water-carriers of the right-wing media. That little edit makes ALL the difference,

[MysticMichael]

Another word for rankism is, of course, pride. Or rather, pride is typically at the root of rankism, and rankism is merely pride's outward manifestation. The key thing to understand about pride is that it is inherently insecure, malcontent and contentious - because pride takes no satisfaction in its own success, but only in the failure of others.

As much as I like and admire Barack Obama, he has set out a tall order for himself to "change the world". Because ultimately that means changing the hearts of our fellow human beings - a tall order, even for God Himself. Frankly, I'd settle for a significant amount of reform in our governmental & legal institutions, to at least curb the more virulent excesses of rankism. As to the more central issue of pride, let President Obama use the bully pulpit - something at which he excels - and let's see how it goes. He certainly seems to be trying to set a good example...

[XCITIZEN]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I know many people who are oppressed by this 'rankism' - people who are low income, working in opressive environments with no benefits, people who are gay, people with disabilities who are marginalized and denied basic social inclusion and a decent standard of living, people who are cornered by sexism, people who are inhibited by racism. As a gay person myself, I do believe that 'rankism' as you define it, encompasses many of these other 'isms' - and I am convinced that if America is going to change, it's going to have to begin moving in a direction OPPOSITE to the direction it is moving now. Obama represents that possibility. I look forward to the publication of your new book.

[ladyhawkke]

Apparently you don't know that Obama is anti-gay? He is such a hypocrite. All the gays are supporting Hillary. Have you seen her open letter to the gay community?

[brenner21]

Thank you for expressing what I and my friends have known from the start. Obama is the better candidate with the best & only chance of winning the general election. He's also the Gentlemen of the campaign: congratulating Hillary on her wins; something she does not do when Obama wins a Primary or Caucus. ... As it stands now, Obama will win the Primary and be the Democratic Presidential Candidate. That is, unless the will of the voters is subverted, which is thankfully looking less and less likely every day. When the time comes, we hope that Hillary's supporters will come home to the Democratic Party and Obama in order to stop another catastrophic 4 years of Neoconservative government, "War all the time", and perhaps a catastrophe like an Iran invasion. We've got to bury the hatchet and hurt feelings, which is being fueled happily by Republicans (Rush Limbaugh told his listeners to vote for Hillary in Texas and Ohio) in order to keep the campaigns going and weaken the Democratic Party. We must unite. If not for ourselves, then for the future generations who will render a verdict on us if we let our difference destroy the Democratic Party.

[EdwardTx]

The problem with "dignity" is that--while many Americans in theory yearn for dignity in politics--when it comes down to voting for those who do not resort to indignities, they can not put that yearning into practice.

When is the last time a dignified candidate defeated a candidate of "indignity" in a remotely close election? That is the dilemma Sen. Obama faces because clearly we know who has run a campaign of indignities.

[myownwings]

Well, let's see - we could make this the first time! Yes, we can!

[carlgt1]

these "scandals" of Obama are hilarious, especially when compared to Whitewater, Enron support of Bush/Cheney, Iran/Contra, Cheney's "secret energy hearings, Bill's infidelities, etc etc ad nauseum.