Follow-Up: Why Calling for Bush to Boycott the Opening Ceremonies is a Big Deal

Two nights ago I posted why I've dropped my support for Hillary. For me, her very public statement calling for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics both alienated and disappointed me. I feel like a better stance for her to take could have been Barack's "let's wait and see approach", at the very least, and an even better role model to follow on this sensitive issue would be San Francisco Gavin Newsom's handling of San Francisco's sponsorship of the Olympic torch run. Gavin, as best anyone could, balanced the needs of the torch run, the rights of its protesters and supporters very commendably. I wish our national politicians displayed these qualities.

Quite simply, many Chinese-Americans and I feel that America, though perhaps the most free and diverse nation in the world, is still not an ideal place. Stereotypes, such as that we are nerdy, tend to excel in math and science, and have no social life just aren't true, and yet you'll see these characteristics typified by the media all the time, if we aren't excluded all together. (Incidentally, you can read a well-articulated article on this other issue here.)

I'm not bringing this up to whine, or even complain. I've learned to accept these stereotypes and their consequences with a grain of salt, as a part of life that maybe some day I can help change. So why am I bringing this up? What does this have to do with Hillary Clinton's campaign-- one that I had been so excited for up until recently?

I am bringing this up because Clinton should know that her calls aren't going to do anything. China's not going to listen to her calls. President Bush is not going to listen to her on this matter. So why do it? The only reason I can think of for Clinton's actions are that docking China wins lots of political points, not only in areas where race is still a sensitive issue, but also in places that specifically view China as a threat to their way of life economically. To me, if this is the case, it's a form of race baiting-- even if it is unintentional. That's why I indicated, in my previous post, that her actions displayed either a lack of judgment, bad advice, or both.

For better or for worse, I believe that the coverage of the Olympic torch and the Olympics overall has been slanted by the Western media. If you read most of the headlines, you'll read about protesters standing out against China's human rights violations. You won't hear emphasis on quotes from protesters calling Chinese Americans communists, which is a patently ridiculous accusation reminiscent of the McCarthy witch-hunts. You won't hear about how China is single handedly bringing more people out of poverty faster than the United States, the E.U., or any other international organization. (I'm not coming to China's defense in terms of human rights violations, I just want to make the point that most reporting on China right now is really noticeably biased.) People don't realize these complicated issues, because the media's not reporting on them fairly. How many protesters even know where Tibet is?

Anyways, a lot of people have looked at this issue in more prescient ways than I care to express here right now. If anyone would like to talk about it, however, and debate it, please do!! I'd definitely spend time responding, if that is the case. But right now, I'm not sure that there is interest.

I hope this post answers your last question Sarah. To also make it clear, I'm not against Hillary. I just don't want to contribute to her campaign anymore for this primary season. I'm equally supportive of both both Clinton and Obama over McCain. I'm just not as excited as I used to be. This also explains why I'm not discounting these candidates based on their foreign, economic, or social policies. I'm for them. They're both much better than Republicans. I also think that targeting China makes it easier for some of us to forget about our own country's human rights abuses.