My Evening With Harriet Christian

It was when the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee made its ruling on Michigan that Harriet Christian came into my life.

From a few rows behind me, her piercing, wizened, New York voice rang out through the awkward silences in the auditorium of the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.

I wish now I could remember each and everything she said. All I remember is that I was glad she was saying it. The DNC had just committed a crime, and I was happy that there was someone unashamed to reveal her fury to all those present.

As we all exited the ballroom -- many of us in disgust -- I saw the cameras swarm in on our Harriet. I decided to stay and watch her in her glory.

In fact, I have a confession to make. It was I who encouraged Harriet to stay and to face the cameras. Each time she wanted to storm from the lobby in a fiery exeunt, it was I who stopped her, consoled her, turned her around, and told her "Your anger needs to be heard, friend. Don't stop."

Did I think that she could have been more coherent at first? Yes, I did. Did I feel that she was flirting with the edge of reason? Yes, I did. Would I have had her change a thing? No, I wouldn't.

I would like to add that I don't condone any correlation between the words "black" and "inadequate." It is my belief that she was not *equating* "black" with "inadequate." I believe she was saying that *Obama* is inadequate, and that he is where he is because of affirmative action tactics -- much as Geraldine Ferraro has said, and not unlike Joe Biden's misspeak last year. Again, though, not words I personally would have ever chosen.

Many have criticized Harriet for what is being categorized as her "circus antics." What they call "antics," I call the red blood of Democracy. She was angry. She was angry as I was angry. We were angry as thousands of people were angry. That anger needed a voice that wasn't couched behind cold, intellectually dishonest reason.

The DNC had committed an act of war, and Harriet was firing back with bullets of passion. Was she the best marksman? Perhaps not. But did she reveal to America the depth of frustration that many, many people are feeling right now? That she did.

We all know that -- had she been as calm and collected as so many of you feel she should have been -- that she wouldn't have the nearly 800,000 YouTube hits she now does. Her voice has been heard.

Is that to say that I believe that Harriet was seeking attention? Not at all. As I've said, it was I who kept the fires of encouragement lit beneath her. She has since confessed to me many a time how she now fears that her emotions might be used to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign. That is the last thing she wants. She simply wanted to cry out against injustice... as so many of us often want to do, but so few of us actually do.

And, for the record: No, she hadn't been drinking. I had the fortune of talking with Harriet well into the night that night. (It was 2am when we finally said "Good night" to one another). While I was knocking back my white Russians and my margaritas, she touched nothing but her Diet Coke. She hasn't touched alcohol since 1985. The only thing she was drunk on that afternoon was indignation.

I hope you will all take the time to get to know Harriet as I have. Harriet is salty. Harriet is a firecracker. Harriet is many things. But Harriet is not a lunatic. She is a life long New Yorker who has worked for civil rights for over forty years. She's a woman full of life and passion. She's a woman who gave her emotions free reign for a few well-televised minutes.

Let those of you who have not exploded in anger cast the first stone... whether or not you were on TV when you did so.

Comments

[teapartydude]

Crime?

Crime?

WTF? THOSE GODDAM RULES and BYLAWS committee gave charity delegates to Hillary!

Those two stupid states weren't supposed to count! Goddam wishy washy people!

[acanthus]

You seem pretty angry, teapartydude. You know what? You have every reason to be angry. All of a sudden, some people are talking as if the primary rules and process were changed this year especially to benefit Obama. Of course, they haven't. It's the same as it's been for a long time., and yes...it's maddening to see people who should know better in denial about that fact. It even more maddening to have other people telling you in so many words that it's necessary to kiss their asses.

[jlang57]

Well done article, thank you for the look at the other side of every issue.
You are, of course, correct regarding our duty to speak our opinion.
What I took from Ms. Christian's rant was the sadly deficient way in which Hillary had run her campaign. Her blind combativeness, stoking of the distractions and use of questionable statistics has produced a group with little real understanding of the differences between her and Obama and a deep seated anger that will be difficult to treat with. This is a curious reflection of her own persona, as it wasn't the Republicans who scuttled her health care bill, but Democrats, tired of her inability to compromise on the smallest thing.
That being said, Obama supporters must recognize the frustration and anger for what it is, the result of thousands of years of relegation to second class status for women everywhere. If what we have seen is any kind of indicator, this frustration is at least as deep as that of any other group that has historically been stereotyped to the sidelines of the mainstream, in large and small ways. We would all do well to shelve our anger and pay attention to Obama's speech on race and approach these women with understanding and recognition of the history they have lived.

[GwenElle]

jlang57, I fully agree with you about the need to move beyond the anger, but I cannot quite agree with you that "thousands of years of relegation to second class status for women everywhere" explains the display we saw from Ms. Christian. In America we are not dealing with a thousand years of history.

It is clear that Ms Christian's rage is real. I will not attempt to dismiss or invalidate her feelings, but for the sake of perspective, I will make the following point that I have made elsewhere: actively serving today in the United States are 16 white female senators, 1 white female who is the Speaker of the House (third in line to succession to the Presidency), 8 white female governors. There are 0 black females serving in those capacities; in fact 0 females of other ethnicities.

Clearly these facts prove that when pursuing elective office white women have been heavily supported by both genders and all ethnic groups. So what are white women so angry about? Why aren’t women of other ethnicities as outraged as Ms Christian and those who share her passion?

There will be a female president, and perhaps sooner than anyone right now is able to think, but why exhaust so much energy on this one pioneering, though unsuccessful, try at the White House?

Surely more perspective is needed.

[SpoxLogic]

Let me get this straight:

For the past 8 or so Dem Presidential primaries, the standard has always been that the candidate with the most delegates should win. (Superdelegates were thrown in for what ever reason), but it was still all about delegates.

Not popular votes, since there were states that held caucuses. Again, never about the POPULAR vote.

Now, Sen. Obama out strategized Sen. Clinton, and so he is inadequate? Seems that he's quite capable if he can out-politic and outmaneuver the vaunted Clinton political machine.

He had a great strategy and great tactics, and he had the charisma and charm to pull it off. Yet, he's being vilified by people in his own party. Why is that? Hint: check a photo of him. All this talk about not enough eperience is hog wash. Which of the three candidates (or any candidate since this country was formed) have had any experience as President of the United States? Answer: none!
Therefore, other experiences is in no way any indicator of how good a President you'd be.

For all we know any candidate could be the greatest or worst President, ever. Only history will tell, as it always has.

[DinOhio]

Harriet may be one of the warriors for civil rights for 40 years. She may have been indignant that the outcome she sought wasn't achieved. She may be a terrific lady. But, as we consistantly learn in this day and age, she is on video, out of control, phrasing things that upon reflection, she might not have said otherwise. But the fact is, she said these things. She raved and ranted. We all saw it. She became the face of the perception that many have of the most irrational and rabid Hillary supporters. Such is life in modern times. Somebody had to be that person and it ended up being Harriet.

[rzan]

What I saw was a woman with displaced anger. She, in my opinion, needs to see a psychiatrist and talk about the real reasons for her anger. If it is not racial hatred (which I suspect is part of it), then I do not understand why she would be so very angry at a man who has conducted himself with great dignity throughout this campaign. She really creeped me out, to tell the truth.

[OhMyGoodness]

Let me say this Will... If she meant simply that Obama is was inadequate she would have said the following.­.. "And for what? An inadequate man." She however chose to add black for whatever reason. Why do you think that is sir?

[kcampbell]

Because he's a black man. I'm a black man. We are not afraid to be called black men. Maybe white people are afraid to call black people, black people. Maybe that's your hangup. He's inadequate because he's been in the senate for how long? Why must you focus on the black part. Would your post be any different he she had just said inadequate? Would you have said, " Is he inadequate because he's black?" See how that works? You can make anything that woman says and turn it into something racial. It quite simple. You try it. Oh wait . You did, sir.

[RFBorjal]

Inadequate? Millions of Americans think otherwise. That's why Obama has won the nomination. That's why he'll win in November.

[live]

anytime someone qualifies a negative statement about someone and includes that persons race it is racist.

[dawlishgal]

I don't know what to say except that Harriet seems to be just one end result of HIllary's constant attempts to inflame the passions of the marginally adjusted.

[anney]

DG

"Harriet seems to be just one end result of HIllary's constant attempts to inflame the passions of the marginally adjusted."

LOL!!!!!

[BIllyDelyon]

Boy do I look forward to tomorrow night when hopefully Hillary's campaign will be put out of its misery.
And we won't have to read anymore of these "Whaaaaa, our candidate deserved to win, we are damn angry about 4 delegates, its a travesty. Even though we tried to steal the whole state, BOOOOHOOO".

Yawn.

[Will2Win]

Where was all this moral outrage from Senator Clinton and her supporters when she agreed well before the primaries that Florida and Michigan were not going to count!? Oh that's right, she thought it wouldn't matter, along with those "insignificant" smaller States and caucuses, because of her entitlement to the Democratic nomination.

[MissT]

"I hope you will all take the time to get to know Harriet as I have. Harriet is salty. Harriet is a firecracker. Harriet is many things. But Harriet is not a lunatic. She is a life long New Yorker who has worked for civil rights for over forty years."

So according to you Will, she's sort of like Rev Wright?

[SpoxLogic]

Great question.

Now the other question is, should she be held to the same standard as Rev Wright?

Let the debate commence!

[pkafin]

Well, she is a single angry woman yelling at a camera. Rev. Wright was a community leader with the responsibility of speaking regularly to a captive audience who was seeking wisdom.

So, no, she should not be held to the same standard.

I say this as someone who was not particular;y freaked out by Rev. Wright. The man has probably spoken for over 100,000 minutes in front of a congregation. the 20 seconds that have been played over and over again couldn't possibly indicate the overall message that he had to give.

As I understand it, no members of his congregation have gone forth with a mission to harm America or Americans. No mass murders, terrorists, or anti-social malcontents have been sufficiently motivated by his message to go on a destructive spree of mayhem. I would have to guess, that, overall, his message was not represented well by the sound bytes that were shoveled at us in the last few months.

Never the less, as a community leader, he is held to a higher standard than the lone bitter voice of Harriet Christian.

[blaqntelligence]

MissT,
Of all the thoughts I've had about this Harriet Christian debacle, that was one perspective never considered.
That's what I love about this site, the opportunity to look at things from another POV. This was was dead bang on.
Now for some answers...­.....



Are those crickets I hear?

[voxpopgirl]

MissT: here, here!

[paganmist]

I would like everyone to please make it a point of correcting the following when you see it being said:

Obama broke the rules by showing ads in Florida:

He didn't break the rules. Before he ran the ads on CNN and MSNBC, he contacted one of the chairs of the Four State committee (who drafted the pledge) to ask if airing an ad on these stations - which means that there would be ads in FL/MI simply because you can't pull an ad for one state - and they GAVE HIM PERMISSION. The chair's first name is Shirley, do a google on this, I'm too lazy.

Neither of them had to remove their names:

Actually, the pledge said that these candidates would not "participate or campaign". Having your name on the ballot is participating. Obama was following the spirit and the letter of the pledge.

Why didn't Obama remove his name in Florida:

Removing a candidate's name in Florida involves signing an affidavit saying that you are not running for President/­participat­ing in the general election. Ridiculous law, but there you have it. None of the candidates wanted to lie and/or disqualify themselves.

These these are all easy to verify via google. After I grab some sleep I will throw up the links.

[IslandGyal]

Senator Obama didn't remove his name from FL, as there was no law that allowed him to. IF you read all the information regarding this story, and not only the partisan ones that support your premise, you would have learned that already. Senator Obama did not put himself on the MI ballot, MI DNC did that.

[SPQR1052]

Let me beabsolutelyclear in this statement --- The only person/campaign seeking the "job" using AFFIRMATIVE ACTION tactics was CAMP CLINTON.

(I am a lifelong registered ARIZONA Republican voting for OBAMA.)

[blueskybigstar]

I'm sorry, but I found the woman's tirade absolutely offensive. I also found Geraldine Ferraro to be absolutely offensive. I don't know what Biden said, but I have been following him a long time and if he did say anything that could be offensive, I believe that he probably misspoke. Geraldine said that the only reason he is winning is because he is a black man. I believe this is almost an exact quote if it is not wholly exact. The woman could have said inadequate man. Should I be more angry with her lie of Obama being inadequate or her trying to equate the term with Obama's blackness? No matter how downtrodden women feel, they should not be desperate enough to put a woman in office who not only lied about experiencing a combat situation through sniper fire, but she tried to claim it as her own and sullied the memories of the 250,000 people who died in Bosnia with this outrageous lie. Sources who know say it was her position not even to get involved. So, what I am saying to you is, if you can look this over, and look over the comments of Ferraro and Christian, then you have issues about race that are so great that it blinds you to the absolute inadequacy of character of your candidate to ever deserve the role as president. Shame, shame, shame on you by putting up this figure as inspiration to your daughters.

[Mij13]

A crime? Are you out of your mind? Obama wasn't on the ballot. Hillary said herself that Michigan wouldn't count. Were they supposed to hand her everything she wants now because she's whining? Harriet's words about Obama weren't words you would have chosen, huh? Yet you were so helpful to present them to us here. She, and I have to suppose, you too, would vote for McSame over a candidate from her own party, just because he's black. Watching this is like watching the death of the old Democratic party, and if Harriet represents it's red blood, all I can say is good riddance.

[Kerkyra]

Indeed! RIP!

[rain]

Great post!

[ObamAtomic]

Sir, you trow the lady under the bus,