The Last Bush Poodle

by Richard Sharp | March 15, 2008 - 11:45am

reddit_title=The Last Bush Poodle

digg_skin='compact';

article tools: email | print | read more Richard Sharp

The Conservatives have vilified Stephane Dion’s leadership for over a year now, everything from repeated and vile attack ads to ongoing, talking point slurs from the chosen few who are allowed to speak to the media. Most pundits in the mainstream media have succumbed to this smear job, even many of Canada’s most seasoned political commentators.

"Not so.", I’m certain their response. "Mr. Dion earned our displeasure." But let’s look at the facts.

Sure, the Liberals lost Outremont and may lose another seat on March 17, but by-elections are politically meaningless when the balance of power is not at stake.

In fact, despite negative press and the huge disadvantage of being both in opposition and competition for centre-left votes from the NDP, the Green party and the Bloc, Mr. Dion’s Liberals have hung tough with the Conservatives in the polls to this day. Nanos Research, consistently the most accurate political pollster in Canada, has the Liberals in a slight lead!

Yes, Mr. Dion’s English is imperfect and there are about 20 words his speech writers should never use. But otherwise his English is quite decent.

The media also criticizes Mr. Dion for not bringing down the Harper government. Come on. Four of five Canadians don’t want another election. If the Liberals had caused one last fall based on an innocuous throne speech of all things, or relatively minor bills, the electorate would not have been kind.

Many pundits predicted an election over Afghanistan and/or the recent federal budget. Instead, Mr. Dion has been widely praised for brokering a deal with the Tories concerning the (doomed) war mission that nudges us towards more peacekeeping and reconstruction. The Liberals also quite wisely refused to force an election over Mr. Harper’s do-nothing budget.

So, the same pundits with egg all over their face now accuse Mr. Dion of “flip-flopping” and of being a “wimp.” Mr. Dion is not getting the “Joe Clark” treatment quite yet, but it’s surely got out of hand. The “wolf pack mentality” has set in.

Here is why the mainstream media have it wrong:

1. Restoration of Trust and Unity within the Liberal Party:

Mr. Dion won the Liberal leadership race fair and square, marked by civility and open debate with many excellent candidates. He has since overcome the fractious Martin-Chretien years, drawing all of his former opponents to his team. Notwithstanding a little grumbling from his Quebec wing, he has restored trust and unity within his party, which is surely a remarkable feat and leadership goal number one.

2. The Liberals have Better Policies

Leaders are also only as good as the direction they’re heading. Mr. Dion has it all over Mr. Harper on this count, too. Mr. Harper’s singular purpose is to emasculate the federal government except for defence and security, while most Canadians favour the Liberal vision of Canada – an activist government on a whole slew of policy issues, including Afghanistan, the environment, Aboriginal and women’s rights, childcare, fighting poverty, progressive taxation and fair trade.

Mr. Harper’s enthusiastic support for all things American is another clear distinction in Mr. Dion’s favour. No reasonable person still supports the Bush administration’s disastrous wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and on terror generally, further “deep integration” with a sinking ship and so on. With the political demise of Mssrs. Blair and Howard, Mr. Harper is arguably the last Bush poodle.

3. The Liberals Have a Better Team

Good leaders surround themselves with competent people and empower and support their team. Most Canadians surely prefer Michael Ignatief, Bob Rae, Ralph Goodale and the other Liberals over Mr. Harper’s pit bulls and poodles. The Liberals are free to speak while the Tories, even Ministers, have been muzzled, so much so it seems his PR people are running the country!

4. Mr. Dion’s Leadership Style is in Fact Superior

Leaders vary from autocratic to democratic and it is clear in which camp Mr. Harper belongs. He’s an arrogant, dismissive and secretive control freak who doesn’t trust his own team. He has centralized power in his office to ridiculous degrees and, when criticized, he resorts to smear tactics and name-calling.

Mr. Harper’s astounding censorship of the federal bureaucracy is so unbelievable that one wonders what all those communications people are doing these days. I suspect mostly preparing talking points for Ministers in advance of forced disclosures of the embarrassing kind under the Access to Information Act.

Mr. Harper is wrong on critical policy issues and unwilling to admit mistakes. Obsessed with control and secrecy. Disrespectful of political opponents and even his own team. Is that leadership or is it dictatorship?

In contrast, Mr. Dion is a proven healer with an empowered team and has a vision most Canadians prefer. When it comes to the human side of leadership, building consensus based on right vs. wrong and making choices to help the disadvantaged the most, Mr. Dion is the clear winner.

5. Women and Ontario Will Vote Liberal, No Matter the Media

Finally, when push comes to shove, it is a given that the 52% of the electorate who happen to be women prefer Mr. Dion over Mr. Harper by a wide margin. The Liberals’ superior position on issues of war and peace, human rights and child care will keep that margin wide into the foreseeable future. Women don’t vote for bullies.

For someone who is widely reported as a cunning tactician, Mr. Harper has been unbelievably stupid in his treatment of Ontario (the Maritimes, etc.). Coming up with legislation that shortchanges Ontario by fully ten federal ridings is a gift to the Liberals whenever the next election. And allowing the Finance minister, Jim Flaherty, to run off at the mouth trashing Ontario’s business environment is the height of political folly.

So, Mr. Dion and the Liberals bide their time. The Conservatives are embroiled in an increasing number of scandals that are showing their true colours. The economy is heading south but, because Mr Harper has squandered the budget surplus on useless measures such as GST cuts and war, the room to take action is limited. "Forget tax-free registered education funds. We're $1 billion over budget on our little war."

The time for an election is growing on the simple grounds that the Harper government keeps shooting itself in the foot. They’ve not many toes left.

Richard Sharp is long-time advocate for peace and privacy, and a life-long “Dipper.” He likes Jack Layton but, right now, the only real choice is between the Liberals and Conservatives. And he obviously believes the mainstream media are not doing their job.

 

...you need to weigh in now on the latest torpedo to hit the good ship Obama, namely, his "reverend problem."

It's been known for some time that Obama is connected (to the hip) with this reverend, and that this reverend has beliefs that a majority of admittedly ignorant and under educated Americans can't fathom (for example that the terrorism of 9/11/2002 against us was nothing new to much of the rest of the world).

I'm suprised that Barack hasn't dealt with his relationship with the reverend in some emphatic way until now. Couldn't he see this coming? Are you kidding me? I feel like Obama's campaign has now been "Spitzered." Another example of the Democrats making damn sure to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Josh, please, what do YOU think?

Most importantly, what should Barack supporters do to fend off this latest torpedo?

I don't like to post more than once in a day, but, hell, I've got a cold and too sick to go out and too wired on Sudafed to go to bed.    So, that's how I came across this. 

Politico, which like the rest of the MSM, is totally in the bag for Obama (NOT!), is running a story about the story. 

Here are some fascinating excerpts:

The fracas started Thursday morning, when ABC’s “Good Morning America” ran a Brian Ross expose on Wright that included old video of him saying: “

Blah de blah de blah, we know what he said. Let's move on to the good part, wherein, shockingly, we discover this is not the first time this story has come up. 

The minister’s controversial history has been written about countless times throughout the campaign. Wright has ties to the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, the black supremacist leader of the Nation of Islam — a fact that has been noted in more than 100 news stories just in the past few months, according to the Nexis database of news coverage.

Got that?  Countless.  More than a hundred.  (Which, actually, most people would classify as "countable," but who am I to quibble with the Fourth Estate?) So why start again?  A tantalizing clue emerges. 

Opponents of Obama have constantly pushed reporters to write about the minister, which these critics considered a ticking time bomb for his campaign.

Hmmm. “Opponents of Obama" who consider this story a "ticking timebomb" have been pushing it.  Who could that be referring to? What “opponents of Obama” would be contacting the press urging them to write more about Wright? Are there any clues that could help us puzzle out this mystery?

On Feb. 20, after a fiery guest sermon by Wright in Little Rock, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ran an article that said: “On Tuesday, Wright criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq and likened the insurgents to the Israelites under Babylonian rule.”

At 9:20 that morning, Obama opponents were already trying to get Politico to link to the story.

Okay, that narrows the list of suspects. We're looking for “opponents of Obama” who are known for “routinely reach[ing] out to reporters to provide information they might use to attack her Democratic opponents,” perhaps someone known for sending such information via “behind-the-scenes e-mails to newspaper reporters and bloggers.” Nope, nothing's coming to mind. Oh well, let's return to the fascinating behind the scenes account of how this important story has hit at this time.

That’s why many news outlets — including Politico — did not initially pile on with rehashes after Ross’s story on “Good Morning America.”

Great. We've been over this ground before so they saw no reason keep running over and over again it until it finally caught on and stirred the wingnuts into an hysterical fever pitch.  What changed?

But that was a reminder that it’s possible for regulars on the trail to be too familiar with the material. With the video widely available in the heat of the race, readers and viewers were thirsty for coverage.

Glad we could clear that up.  It wasn't the doing of mysterious “opponents of Obama” after all. It's us, we ourselves. We are to blame, we foolish news consumers. We were simply dying for more news about this important issue. “Thirsty,” even. Silly me, thinking it was a rival campaign.   

The Oregon chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has endorsed Barack Obama.

This is big news, since the national AFSCME endorsed Clinton and only the Illinois AFSCME had broken ranks and endorsed Obama.

Oregon AFSCME has endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States. The union’s executive board made the endorsement today (March 15) in Portland. 

 

“The union took action prior to the upcoming Oregon primary because Obama has a history of standing up and fighting for working people,” said Oregon AFSCME Executive Director Ken Allen. “In Illinois, Sen. Obama fought alongside AFSCME to keep vital public services open, including mental hospitals and prisons. He also worked to help organize thousands of workers at Resurrection Hospital, and supported card check recognition for other workers seeking to unionize in their workplace.

 

“He is a candidate organized labor can proudly stand behind and support.”

 

Several members of the Oregon AFSCME Executive Board explained their support for Obama.

 

“I think he’s a uniter, not a divider,” said Becky Steward, President of AFSCME Local 88, which represents Multnomah County employees. “I believe his record better reflects how my members feel in Multnomah County.”

 

“I believe Obama has a proven track record of fighting for our members,” said Jack Tucker, President of AFSCME Local 2067, which represents City of Salem workers. “I also believe Obama has a much better chance of winning in November against John McCain.”

 

Dal Ollek, President of AFSCME Local 1724 that represents City of Eugene employees, said Obama brings a message of change.

 

“We need more collaboration at the national level,” said Ollek. “I believe this vote in support of Obama represents the best choice for the American people.”

 

Tina Turner-Morfitt of Salem is a Corrections Counselor and president of a statewide local that represents Corrections employees in the state prison system. Obama’s ability to unite people is what led her to support the endorsement.

 

“I believe Obama can unite Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, which is what our membership within Corrections looks like,” she said. “This endorsement best reflects the thinking of our members and leaders.”

 

Matt Hilton is 27 years old and works at OHSU, where is he active in AFSCME Local 328. Hilton also participates in Oregon AFSCME’s “Next Wave” program, which is geared toward bringing up new union activists from those 35 and under.

 

“I’m proud that AFSCME Council 75 has an independent voice and leaders that are willing to listen to our Oregon members’ opinions,” said Hilton.

 

“I’m proud of our progressive Council,” added Jaimie Sorenson, 30, another Local 328 member and another Next Waver. “Our union stands for what we believe in, and our candidate is Barack Obama.”

 

With the Obama endorsement, Oregon AFSCME joins the other biggest unions in Oregon supporting Obama in the Oregon primary, including the Oregon Education Association, the Teamsters, Service Employees International Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers and others. Allen said AFSCME plans to mail to its members and participate in other get-out-the-vote activities both for Obama and for Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate.

Ben Smith, reporting at Politico, regarding Hillary's attempt to delay releasing the official results of the Texas caucus:

In a letter sent to the state Democratic Party late Friday, the Clinton campaign requests the March 29 count and state Senate district conventions be postponed until the eligibility of an estimated 1 million caucus-goers are double checked.

Anyone want to venture a guess as to why she'd want to delay these results? I suspect it has to do with the revelation that Obama picked up 7 additional delegates in the Iowa county conventions.  Clinton does not need additional good news getting in the news about Obama's campaign.

Side note, I wish I could find another source for this but at the moment only Ben seems to have it.

Okay, so for all you bewildered neocons and Hillary supporters who portentously harp on the implications of Obama's association with Reverend Wright, I have to ask: what exactly are you so afraid of? I want specifics here, guys. I know, some of you are just using Wright's outbursts as a new and convenient justification for why Hillary should get the nomination. It's kind of flimsy, but whatever, nothing new in the perennial wishful thinking of ye olde Clintonistas. I suppose this comment is directed more at those people who keep forecasting that Wright's speeches are some ominous indication of how Obama will run the country as president. I'm just wondering if you'd care to elaborate on these fears? Because asking "Just WHO is Barack Obama???" is getting awfully inane,  despite all the new anti-Obama scuzz Sean Hannity manages to dredge up. Personally, I think you have a better chance in whining about Rezko and Obama's ability to bring about change than your new approach of suggesting that he is somehow deceiving the American public, eagerly waiting to plunge the country someplace very big, very bad, and very black. I mean, I don't really know what you're getting at when you talk about how you can't support him because he's known this pastor for twenty years...is it that you think this association has poisoned Obama's character?  That he's just talking a nice game of post-partisan unity and change, but the moment he's sworn into office he's going to put white America in one giant labor camp, appoint Louis Farrakhan as his veep, declare himself ruler for life and beyond, bomb Israel, and sell our children to Iran to build nuclear weapons? That he's really a glib hatemonger? It sounds like you're edging towards that wonderful new e-mail smear that Obama is the antichrist. It's sad, because I'd like to think you'd be able to keep your rancor on the level, instead of following Hillary off the edge of sanity like a herd of buffalo off a cliff.

Look, I love my father. He's a kind, insightful, and generous man. But he grew up in a blue-collar area of Long Island, his father was a railroad worker, and sometimes his opinions on groups like homosexuals and hispanics are pretty offensive (he is, by the way, an Obama supporter). Sometimes the things he says really makes my skin crawl, but nevertheless, I understand that he grew up in a different time, with different social and cultural norms and influences.  In the end he's my father, and I've always been smart enough to discern the wisdom from the sixty-year old prejudices. It's just an inevitability (or perhaps tendency) of the older generation, I'd say.  My father remains my mentor and continues to offered me priceless advice, but that hardly means I've ever agreed with him on any of his close-minded opinions. Ever. We've gotten into plenty heated arguments about it, but in the end what's meaningful about our relationship isn't based on an ignorant, bygone cultural understanding from the 1950s. So Lord knows, I am not going to hold Obama accountable for the sins of the father--especially seeing as how Jeremiah Wright, being a crusader in the Civil Rights campaign, must have infinitely more reasons to be angry than my old man.

The HuffPo article titled 'Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?' got it right (no link, because I'm lazy). You twits need to stop jerking off your visceral fears and examine what it is you're actually so afraid of. One user wrote something on Huffington along the lines of, "Try to understand where this racist is coming from? I don't want to understand!" Well, I suppose some people have already learned all they'll ever need to know about black people from rap music and basketball, so there's no need to look any further into the history an feelings of some of those 1960s Civil Rights fighters who had hot coffee poured on their heads or dogs set on them.  Let's disregard the fact that racism doesn't end just when you get rid of colored water fountains, and systematic oppression and discrimination is still alive and well in this country today, and might cause a bubbling reserve of slightly irrational but righteous indignation among oppressed minorities.  Let's not even give them the benefit of the doubt.  No, let's just take this outburst as a militant threat against white security and cry foul because Geraldine Ferraro didn't get so much understanding.  Rev. Wright doesn't speak for Obama, and I don't see how on earth Obama could ever be a hatemonger...unless I'm to believe these oh-so-rich allegations that he's a *secret* hatemonger with a *secret* agenda for America that he'll *secretly* pass despite our time-honored (well, maybe less recently) of checks and balances. 
In sum, Hillary people, please stick to dismissing his change. Then you can be snide and all knowing and we can start touting the math and call you delusional and we can all go back to agreeing to disagree. But I'm begging you: do not go down this looney road. I mean, what's next? He's going to paint the White House black? Please.

As for all of those trolls who have started to jabber about how this outburst has sounded the death knell for Obama, I would like to remind you PA is six weeks away.  Media coverage is a capricious mistress...or maybe an a child with ADHD...anyway.  NAFTAgate was what? Two weeks ago?  And who even considers that relevant at this point? If this Wright codswallop is as intense and unrelenting in six weeks as it is now, then maybe you little wonky Nostradamuses can start with the predictions. But 48 hours is a little too soon to start consulting your crystal ball.
So uh, suck it.
Peas

OBAMA DAILY NEWS Saturday March-15-2008 (posted to DU message board) WillYourVoteBCounted  Mar-15-08 12:09 AM   #0     Barack Obama: On My Faith and My Church  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:12 AM   #1     delete  grantcart   Mar-15-08 03:01 AM   #15     Richard Miniter: In Defense of Obama's Pastor  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:13 AM   #2     Sorry, Hillary: You've Crossed the Line  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:14 AM   #3     Hillary's New Conservative Friends  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:15 AM   #4     Clinton Take on Pennsylvania Is Increasingly Detached From Reality  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:15 AM   #5     Hillary-Backer Bill Nelson Floats Compromise To Florida Voting Crisis  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:16 AM   #6     The reason for the change is in my link below - they are giving up on delegate count  grantcart   Mar-15-08 02:53 AM   #14     Obama's Michigan Co-Chair Suggests Agreement On Redo Of Primary Is Likely  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:17 AM   #7     Bob Graham: Iraq War Vote Was Commander In Chief Test  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:23 AM   #8     Obama Pushes Back on Youtube Against Rev. Wright  slinkerwink   Mar-15-08 01:24 AM   #9     Bob Graham on Solution for Florida Primary  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:27 AM   #10     Hsu's Legal Process Continues As Rezko's Heats Up  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:29 AM   #11     Dem Race May Come Down To North Carolina  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:36 AM   #12     Its moving time again - get those goal posts over there - tell the delegates to go home  grantcart   Mar-15-08 02:50 AM   #13     1,117 Reasons Florida Can't Be Trusted With a Mail In Primary  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 03:19 AM   #16     That Scary 3 AM Call  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 03:47 AM   #17     ROTF!!!  Fighting Irish   Mar-15-08 01:53 PM   #32     Monstrous behavior  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 03:48 AM   #18     FL:Those complaining got us in this mess by wanting an early primary  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 04:03 AM   #19     Obama Challenges Clinton on Earmarks  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 04:16 AM   #20     Obama works to convert in Pennsylvania  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 04:21 AM   #21     Breaking News32 minutes ago: Obama says Rezko played a bigger fundraising role..  rodeodance   Mar-15-08 04:25 AM   #22     Obama discloses info he discovers to the news  catgirl   Mar-15-08 10:52 AM   #25     Burned All Your Bridges Yet, Hillary?  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 04:28 AM   #23     The Real Dream Team!  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 04:34 AM   #24     I have yet to see "Obama news" that actually talks about Obamas positions on issues...  niceypoo   Mar-15-08 10:57 AM   #26     WELL THE KLINTON KLAN NEEDS TO START THEIR OWN "NEWS"  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:30 PM   #28     Iowa county convention updates  grantcart   Mar-15-08 12:58 PM   #27     Should Dems Pick a Nominee Dems Consider Nasty and Dishonest?  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:30 PM   #29     Barack, Hillary 'Agree' To Be Nicer  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:41 PM   #30     Plouffe Says If Obama the Nominee, Dems Will Be Competitive in General Election  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 01:51 PM   #31     Clinton won't show earmarks, tax returns or records of her time in WH  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 02:19 PM   #33     Clinton's "scortched earth" strategy  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 02:29 PM   #34     "Hillary's Mission Unaccomplished" compared to Rove Playbook, Iraq War  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 02:46 PM   #35     Mississippi: 'Limbaugh Effect' Softens Blow For Hillary Clinton  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 05:11 PM   #36     Chicago Tribune indicates that it's satisfied with Obama's account of Rezko  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 05:11 PM   #37     Bribing the Referee  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 05:12 PM   #38     Boston Globe: Kennedy and Waxman say Clinton exaggerating role in SCHIP  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 05:12 PM   #39     Article: PLEASE read this article to understand why some of feel so strongly about Hillary  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 05:12 PM   #40     In every FL, MI scenario, Obama maintains pledge delegate lead  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 05:13 PM   #41     David Gergen on Obama's pastor story....A voice of reason...  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 05:13 PM   #42     Obama camp adds 65,000 registered Dems to Pennsylvania  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 05:14 PM   #43     ABRAMOFF FIRM INDICTED OVER MARIANAS, CLINTON CAMPAIGN REFUSES TO RETURN TAINTED WILLIE TAN $$ !  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 05:14 PM   #44     Clinton Nostalgia, the 1993 DNC Annual Report & How Things Have (Sorta) Changed...  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 05:26 PM   #45     No longer for sale - Clinton supporting fatcat DNC donors can take a walk  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 06:07 PM   #46     Obama forces have made major gains in Iowa - gains 7 more delegates  grantcart   Mar-15-08 08:06 PM   #47     OBAMA MAKES MAJOR DELEGATE GAINS IN IOWA  grantcart   Mar-15-08 10:10 PM   #48     It is good the race has gone on so long. We are seeing true colors.  WillYourVoteBCounted   Mar-15-08 10:11 PM   #49     Obama 90 minute interview with Chicago Tribune, video and transcripts
Linked here  Each day's news archived here (book mark it)

Talking Points indeed.   Many of the Clinton supporters here and other places simply assert that think HIllary will win and then blather on about experience, ready on day one boloney.  The simple fact is that Obama has an insurmountable lead in delegates.

 

One thing that the media has done a good job on is quickly and repeatedly exposing the Clinton spin on words superdelegates (in Clinton/Mark Penn speak:  "automatic delegates") and even trying to make a distinction between caucus and primary delegates.  I'm waiting for her to spin on the supers again when Obama takes the lead on them too which he has been on the way to doing at a rapid  pace.

 

Every time I hear a member of the Hillary camp make this argument, it reminds me about how woefully unprepared she was for this election and it highlights how she has mismanaged the biggest thing she's ever taken on.  For someone of her fame as one of the most prominant names in the world,  status, and incredible financial advantage at the beginning of this race to let it slip away demonstrates more than any single factor in her impending loss that she will not be able to beat John McCain.  She is not ready and more than anything she is not the right candidate for the Democratic Party.

 

She is single-handedly responsible for dividing the Democrats by stirring up hate with the race injection (Bill, Rendell, Ferraro, etc.), moving the goal posts and trying to steal (see Michigan & Florida), and now flat out extortion (see Clinton backers threaten DNC) among other things.  She's not what the country needs and definitely not what the Democratic Party needs. 

 

She is a divider, not a uniter.  One very definite and undeniable flaw that the Clintons have is their demonstrated ability to divide the country and unite Republicans.  They are now doing that to our very own Democratic Party.

 

It's refreshing to see that cooler heads are starting to come forward.  Nancy Pelosi has said in an interview to be broadcast tomorrow on ABC's This Week that if superdelegates overturn the will of voters, that it will harm the Democratic Party.  It will and she's right. 

 

Donna Brazille in her appearances on CNN, MSNBC and other places reminds me that the grown-ups in the party are watching and listening the same way we are to Hillary and can see much better than many of us just how she's spinning.  To them the "automatic delegate" word play rings hollow as do much of the moving of the goal posts tactics, the race game and most of all the simple numbers. 

 

Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Al Gore and others sitting on the fence like Pelosi and Brazille have a bullsh#t radar that is much better refined than the average voter.  They also have the Democratic Party's best interest in mind and can see that Obama has attracted and brought out new young voters and African-Americans that they have been trying to actually get out into the voting both for decades; will draw voters in Red states )that HIllary has insulted and written off for the general eletion after losing them) which will boost congressional candidates; that Obama is bringing in money in a new way taking what Howard Dean started and substantially increasing it;

 

They don't want to alienate a new generation of Democrats and the important and loyal African American constituency by letting Hillary spin, bully and cheat her way into the nomination to likely lose the election to John McCain.  Polls have consistently shown Barack Obama doing much better than Hillary against McCain.  Plus, the Republican from the get go have been prepared to take on the Clintons and are crossing their fingers and drooling at the chance, but know that Obama for all of the above reasons and more is a much tougher candidate.

 

As I've said before by directing attention to Frank Rich's early column called "Who's Afraid of Barack Obama," it is Obama, not Clinton who is the candidate who will beat John McCain.  As Bill Mahr said 'the sight of Barack Obama on stage with "Grampa Munster" would be enough to sway voters.  You can't say that will Hillary who unfortunately like Joe Leiberman favors McCain to Senator Obama.  That unprecedented gaffe of publicly siding with the Republican nominee above her Democratic opponent is something that superdelegates will take into mind as Hillary's choosing self-interest over greater party good to set Obama over the top.

 

Superdelegates know that despite what Mark Penn and other Clinton surrogates say about Obama not beating her in big states other than Illinois, Democrats will carry New York, New Jersey and California.  But more importantly, they have to potential to take back North Carolina, Texas and a few other Red States. 

 

I'm sure some of you can remind me of more reasons why Hillary is not the candidate of change like Keith Olbermann did and the one who can win the White House, but I direct you to write superdelegates and put your own arguments in a letter to them.

 

I'm sure that Hillary's people are going filtering letters but why not give them a little more work or possibly convince them to flip for Obama like superdelegates are.  Thanks again Mr. Cohen for your important post which has influenced me to write this (and hopefully is a call to arms to other Obama supporters) to write to the superdelegates myself.

Obviously, lots of them have publicly indicated that they intend to support a certain candidate.  And lots more surely will.

But when it comes time for them to actually place their vote, is it necessarily public?

America has a long history of it's ministers speaking out from the pulpit on political and social issues.   Sometimes for the good & sometimes for the worse.  You may get the inspirational speech of a Dr. King or the hatred of a Fred Phelps whose screams of hate are heard over the grieving of our military families.    Religions (as most things in life) are two sided coins.   You get the good with the bad.

The important thing to always remember is that we must never become confused that the voice from the pulpit is from anything other than a  mere mortal.  It is not a direct line to God.   The comments made by these ministers can sometimes hurt and must often be questioned.

On September 13, 2007 in discussing the attack on the World Trade Center, the Reverend Jerry Falwell made the following comment on the 700 Club,

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the fingerin their face and say,"you helped this [9/11] happen"

He was immediately supported in this hateful and untrue statement by the host of the 700 Club, Pat Robertson who replied to him, "Well I totally concur...Amen"

One week later, the following was screamed from a pulpit in Chicago,

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York, and we never batted an eye...We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is brought right back in our own front yards."

The comments of the Rev. Wright are wrong.   But in fairness, when you look at the days immediately following 9/11 there were a lot of mistakes made and a lot of wrong things said.   The comments of one more preacher (even one who knows a candidate for President) fade into the horror of the moment.

In 1971, the Rev. Billy Graham was taped in the Oval Office making racial slurs against Jews with President Nixon.    Years later when the tapes were made public, he made the quick, obligatory apology and did not speak of the issue for many years.    Then he said this,
"

I am now an old man of 83 suffering from several ailments.  As I reflect back, I realize that much of my life has been a pilgrimage--constantly learning, changing, growing and maturing.   I have come to see in deeper ways some of the implications of my faith and message, not the least of which is in the area of human rights, and racial and ethnic understanding.

Racial prejudice, anti-Semitism, or hatred of anyone with different beliefs has no place in the human mind or heart.   I urge everyone to examine themselves and renew their own hearts before God."

We can hope that our leaders (both spirtitual and political) take the words of Billy Graham to heart.   They too must be willing to journey on this pilgrimage called life--ready to learn, change, grow & mature.

So, now that we've gone back and forth from camp Hill's emails to Powers to Ferraro to Wright and saw an expectation from the MSM, the blogs and the general public for candidates to stand up to surrogates who say mean things, I think we need to take a good, hard look at John McCain.

First, he stood back and laughed when a woman on the campaign trail called Hillary a "bitch," and now he's shrugging his shoulders helplessly as his colleague says that an Obama presidency would please the "radical Islamists."

Don't get me wrong, I am completely sick of the "who's racist now" back and forth, but why is it that the GOP just gets a pass on junk like this?  Is racism only bad if it's expressed by a Democrat?  Is the GOP just the whole nation's "uncle you don't always agree with" and we are too helpless and too polite to expect more?  What does it say about a presidential candidate that he's not even willing to acknowledge that statements like these about his senate colleagues are hitting below the belt and condemn the comments? 

For a candidate who claims he's a maverick and is willing to stand up to the establishment, it seems like McCain's been spending a lot of time on his ass when it matters.  Maybe the moderate Repubs and Independents (or any "values voters" for that matter) who see him as a viable option should give his character another look.

"Obama in Plainfield IN:  We Have To Come Together."
Check It Out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsqDTVmlKk

Dear Campaign for Hillary,

As it seems the campaign is changing its narrative on a weekly basis, I would like to suggest something for the next version. Try giving reality a chance.

1) You agreed before any votes were cast that FL and MI would not have any delegates seated. Those two states never had the opportunity to meet Barack Obama, and MI didn't even have his name on the ballot. Those two pseudo-primaries were nothing more than a name-recognition test. Yet, now that you are losing, you are arguing that the voters of FL and MI are disenfranchised and that the pseudo-primaries were fair. Fair? How can I cast a vote for someone who shows such a lack of intellectual honesty?

2) Arguing that Hillary is better than Obama because she won NY and CA is ridiculous. You really think that historically blue states will vote for McCain over Obama? All the available evidence suggests that Obama will win NY and CA in a general election vs. McCain. Arguing otherwise makes you look irrational and divorce from reality--in other words, it makes Hillary look like W. Bush.

3) Pushing the media-bias story has made your most rabid fans foam at the mouth, but does nothing to persuade people who don't already support Hillary to do so more. The race- and sex-baiting that the Hillary campaign has engaged in, while simultaneously accusing the Obama campaign of doing so, makes you look delusional. Especially when, in the days leading up to March 4th, the media covered the Hillary campaign almost exclusively--no doubt having some influence on the March 4th results. The media has been rough on Hillary, but the media has also allowed her to float her "experience" argument without question. We all know that there isn't much in that balloon, and that it could pop with a single pointed question.

4) Including the votes from MI and FL in your count of "popular vote" is dishonest and divorced from reality. It is yet another example of behavior that makes you look delusional.

5) Stop assuming that Obama's supporters will vote for Hillary if she manages to finagle the Democratic nomination. Putting your fund-raisers to work as bribery agents of the DNC is offensive and highly unethical. I suppose I should thank you for doing so, as it shows Hillary's true colors (win at all costs). It will make it easier for me to decide to vote for McCain if Hillary does, by some back-handed way, steal the nomination.

If you wish to earn hearts and minds, you need to start speaking truth. Your illogicaly, delusional, and ridiculous claims only serve to persuade me and voters like me that Hillary simply cannot be entrusted with the highest office this country offers.

Cordially,

stYMied

An interesting phenomenon occurred today at the Cerro Gordo County Democratic Convention.  From the beginning of the day to the point where delegates to the state convention were determined, Clinton lost and Edwards gained.  Also interesting, was the fact that on caucus night, Clinton was the winner in this county.  As of today, the delegate count for the state convention from this county is as follows:  Obama - 19, Clinton - 15, Edwards - 12.  Had the delegates been determined on the original registration this morning, Clinton would have had 16 and Edwards 11.

The number of county delegates after the official registration (delegates and alternates officially seated) today was Obama - 75, Clinton - 61, Edwards - 44, Biden - 1.  After the realignment, Edwards had 48 - picking up the one Biden delegate and presumably others from Clinton, although I only know the specific Edwards count because I was a delegate in that camp today and am one of the twelve to go to the District and State Conventions as an Edwards delegate.  Our county may be an anomaly, but the Edwards delegates here all remained committed to hang on all the way to the national convention in hopes of having some clout.

It's hard to know exactly happened because I do not know the total number of delegates named at the caucuses in the county and thus do not know if the 181 total today was lower.  If that is the case, it might explain some of the Clinton erosion.  Just in terms of energy today, the Obama and Edwards people were much more fired up.  The Clinton folks appeared somewhat subdued, maybe because they recognized the numbers had flipped from January.

Don't know if you are collecting many anecdotal reports like this, but I thought you might find this little tidbit interesting.  One of the reasons caucus states are so fascinating. :-)

intp

7 more to Obama in second round of iowa caucus
+1 bonus likely now that he has the majority.


I wonder if it isn't going to be clearly over before PA?

Dear Reverend Wright,

I write to you today to offer a small bit of support at what might be a difficult time for your family and yourself.

There are a series of comments of which you are certainly aware that are causing considerable outrage in some quarters this week…but if I may be so bold, I do not understand exactly why the sermons that are today being proffered as unacceptable speech deserve to generate the degree of shock and anger being expressed in the larger political and media communities.

It is clear that you express your positions with great fire—and we presume an appropriate level of brimstone as well—but when you suggest that our imperious foreign policy has come home to roost, I think you speak truth in a way that makes many uncomfortable, yet seems to be borne out by a dispassionate examination of facts.

To be completely honest, I have forever wondered why we have never had a national conversation that centers around the question of whether we might be, through our own behavior, causing others to contemplate attacks of a similar nature to the events of 9/11; and rather than offering condemnation, I write today to thank you for having the courage to raise a most difficult issue.

Another quick note—again, with your kind indulgence.

I have never been a nigger.

But I have seen, with my own two eyes, the look of dismissive contempt on the face of someone close to me talking about “lazy niggers” who would just as soon kill you as rob you…and it hurts me, deep in my soul, to imagine the torment that statement causes in the hearts of those to whom the remarks are directed.

I will never feel that torment personally…and the fact is neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain have either. It is also a fact that there is a candidate running who has had that experience—and in a time when reconsidering how we relate to each other and the world is more critical than ever, that experience may in fact matter.

Which brings me to my final topic:

As a child I can recall watching the images of the “Long Hot Summers” and then being told that I had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance when school resumed.

I could never resolve the conflict between those images and “One Nation Under God”, even at that young age.

From the age of 10 I refused--never out loud, but silently—to participate in the morning ritual; and for the rest of my school career I stood silently with my arms at my sides.

With that in mind, I want you to know that I do well understand what you meant when you said “God Damn America”; and while it was said in a manner that was clearly designed to cause discomfort to the listener, it does not change the fact that behind the words is again an overarching truth many wish would remain unspoken.

And I would go a step further.

I would suggest that the exercise of speaking truth to power is in fact the very essence of a Reverend’s chosen vocation…and that choosing to remain silent is choosing to assent to injustice.

The most important power possessed by the United States is not military, or economic, or superficially cultural. Instead, our greatest strength lies in the fact that we are not a “love it or leave it” nation—that we are indeed capable of great and painful introspection, and from time to time, great and painful change.

But that change, as you so well know, is not achieved by the meek.

And I write today to tell you that I think a Nation that began a process of great and painful change with a Civil War in the 19th Century and consecrated even more hallowed ground at a bridge in Selma in the 20th Century can stand a bit of strident truth telling in this 21st Century …and that, despite today’s hue and cry, if we really think about the meaning of your words we will find within them dark and unsettling truths.

But if we are willing to face those truths…to look within ourselves and give that “last great measure of devotion”…we may finally find the power to set ourselves truly free.

Should that day come, Reverend Wright, a God who has blessed us so richly in the past will have bestowed upon America the greatest blessing of all.

She won't release her tax returns so voters don't know where she got the five million dollars she loaned to her campaign. It could have come from al qaeda? How are we to know?
 
She won't release her White House papers even though most of her claims to "experience" come from her days as First Lady. How are voters supposed to make an infromed decision if they don't have all the information from what she did or didn't do in the White House?

And now, she won't release her earmark requests.

We spent today back-and-forthing a few more times by e-mail with her press office, and the exchanges made it pretty clear that the oversight was intentional. The plan seems to be that since the NY press has never obsessed over Hillary's earmark requests, she can safely not release them as long as she doesn't say she won't and doesn't say why she won't.

Without torturing the details, the one thing we learned is that she plans to be absolutely transparent about stuff she hasn't done yet. Per spokesman Phillippe Reines: "We are now going above and beyond...the common practice on Capitol Hill and releasing all of our requests going forward."

This controversy is the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign because of what it will have Americans come to perceive about the Obamas' politics:  in Western Europe & countries such as Canada and Australia they could be accommodated within the centre's mainstream.  But in America?   They will be seen as so very left of centre.  
I suspected it when I read of Michelle saying this was the first time she'd ever been proud of her country and even more so when I read that Obama had stopped wearing his pin in reaction to all the flag-waving after 9/11.   I was sure of it when I heard Hannity's demented raving about Obama's friendship with the Weatherman bomber, Ayers, and then learned that it wasn't just a case of occasionally bumping into each other in altruistic circles and  their kids being at the same school, but that Obama had actually asked Ayers to be on the board of a charity that Obama sponsors.  Why in the world would he, with presidential ambitions, do that?  What does that tell us of his judgment?
Why would Obama not leave Wright's church?   Because even if he does genuinely part company with the utter extremism of Wright's views and the vile spectre of the way in which he expresses them, no doubt Obama - as do most of us somewhere on the left spectrum  - understands and sympathises with where he comes from and  shares his opposition to the disastrous results of decades of  hawkish and oil dominated US foreign policy,  and  the status quo on so many  economic and social policies.
Obama has asked the American people to believe that his judgment is superior to Clinton's.   I now see that it is not - it is only very different to Clinton's.    Hers I have long believed is the pits - ie always and everywhere a function of expediency and ruthless personal ambition.  Hell, she wouldn't even support anti-cluster bomb legislation! 
But his, I now believe, is the ultimate in foolish for someone who has clearly long harboured the ambition to rise to the pinnacles of the American political system.   
He's history now.   It's sad - but I'm resigned because I've come to see it as having always been inevitable.  He is on the left of the Democratic party and will suffer the same fate as all previous left candidates. 
Watching the smugness of  Hillary's impending rise - seeing the sleaze surrounding her,  people like Penn vindicated - will be repulsive;  the only other option, McCain, the world and low income Americans can't afford.  
My only comfort is that I think the policy climate for the Democratic nominee and then maybe President is going to be a nightmare.  When even Angelina Jolie comes back from Iraq saying how hopeful things are and America can't possibly abandon it now, while you yourself are advocating immediate withdrawal...  how to deal with a recession with an intolerable inherited deficit already in place as you're promising broad-based tax cuts and massive social expenditures;   I comfort myself  and actually really enjoy contemplating Hillary's future nightmare just desserts...

Hillary has her supporters writing to"automatic delegates" and super delegates to lobby their votes.
In one of the "facts" listed along the side of the page:
"The race is currently a virtual tie."
Is that true?

http://www.delegatehub.com/contact/

As promised. Isn't it wonderful!?

I just saw a special report on CNN.  The reporter was asking Iraqi soldiers  who they would like to see win our presidential election.   Some said Hillary, others said Obama, others just said "Democrat, whoever, Democrat".  When asked why, they said they're fighting "a Republican war, we've seen Republican war....let's see what Democrats can bring here".  Some said it's really a war between U.S. and Iran, just taking place in their country.   
Even with CNN bias, or Clinton bias, I think it was very telling.  I'd actually like to see a lot more candid interviews with Iraqi citizens--ones not  produced by the Pentagon.  
Interestingly, last year, one of the congressional oversight committees invited ten Iraqi legislators to come to a hearing and talk about their points of view.  
The committee kept pressing the State Department to arrange this, but they wouldn't respond.   As Patrick Leahy recently discovered,  the reason the Iraqi legislators won't come is because our State Department won't issue them temporary visas.


 

I understood what Rev. Wright was saying in his all-be-it overwrought way about America. But who was the Barack Obama he was talking about? Didn't recognize him.

Then it hit me: The media is focused on how Obama views Wright. The answer may be in how Wright views Obama. The answer is he makes him up. He makes him up to fit his cosmology of bitterness, well-earned as it may be.

The starting point, I'll confess, is that I believed what I read in "Dreams From My Father," one of the most subtle, textured explorations of class, race and culture ever written. The story's arc is basically how the child-Barack takes in a world of influences that includes an extraordinary white mother, an absent African father, an Indonesian step father and life abroad, custodial white grandparents. He lived in struggling middle-class circumstances, attended an exclusive prep school.

Slowly, he begins to feel the pull of race in the U.S. Since he doesn't quite belong anywhere, he can choose. He chooses to integrate himself into African-American life.  He articulates it; it's a choice. As much a true citizen of the world as anyone ever was, he comes to know he needs a place, a community, an identity.

The book ends at his wedding with a tableau of his African half-brother -- a Muslim convert whose strident attitudes Barack finds objectionable -- hugging his white mother and grandmother, saying his has two more mothers now. Obama calls it the happiest moment of his life. He has solved his issues with community and grafted the solution on to his broader, even more important vision of humanity.

So who is this cartoon character, this ghetto archtype, Wright thinks is running for president? He's the child of a single mother who grew up in poverty surviving and triumphing over the sting of racism, a man with every right and reason to be as angry as the pastor himself.

I can only imagine that the Harvard law and Colombia U. grad, the Sidley & Austin summer associate, U. Chicago law professor, the prep school kid, the child of an adored white mother must have found all this pretty amusing. Like alot of Wright's other rants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQNpEET9WqQ&feature=related

 

http://www.myspace.com/lis64

Peace,
Lis

"It's clear this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

Maybe in the next debate, someone will ask her about that statement and why she changed positions.

Hillary Clinton will say anything and change nothing.

Reverend Wrights comments have and should be denounced by Obama and Obama has said so.  He has also said he cannot denounce the man and I agree.   Obama is who he is in part to Reverend Wright's guidance for almost 20 years.   Obama has said he will not denounce the man because his ministry has a span of 35 years.  So those who can not understand the difference between one or the other, can not and will not understand what Obama and his candidacy represent.   Obama is who he is because out of all that anger, he has found community and a purpose for uniting us and transcending all those divisions that for so long have dimished our own progress. 
We can not and should not allow that kind of speech in our politics, by the same token, can we, as a Nation, heal our wounds and see this as another reason to elect Obama as our next President.  

You warn people that you may censor their comments and possibly not even post them before they waste their time responding to your remarks.

It is not unlike agreeing to go do something with someone and then blowing off your commitment, the other party set aside time and you wasted it.

If you know you may not agree with the comments you receive back and then reserve the right to exclude some - don't you think you have a responsibility to warn people first?

Am I missing something because I posted two remarks at two different posts and got back a 'comment is being held' message, which has never happened to me before.

I was a bit perturbed because I had spent a fair amount of time looking up documents and creating links so that I wasn't perceived as a baseless troll - doing the hit and run thing.

And all but one of the links went back to the DNC and related Democrat sites. The other one refernced an AP News site in Florida.

We're not talking rabble rousing here.

The one individual appears to only have been posting here since the 13th - how do you set your blog to force reviews?

Like I asked before - am I missing something here?

By the way - the comment policy link fails.

Quick thought I wanted to jot down--the "fighter" approach Clinton embraces so fiercely is wrong because it so fundamentally also embraces everything that is wrong about government and politics.

While Clinton fights the same old fights against the same old vicious snake oil peddlers in the Capitol and causing each side to retreat further into their bunker to plot a final solution with intermittent small victories and small losses, Obama is out there talking and making sense to people, not Republicans, and building a movement which will eventually throw all those bastards out of the Congress.

A lot of people are willing to listen.

Fox News appears to have put the “Worst of Wright” tape onto a continuous loop.  Right now, they have two pretty white sorority girls clucking their tongues and oh so unctiously sympathizing with the political problem it's created for Obama. The other news organizations appear to have moved on.

So now we know what the next round of emails is going to be about and what the wingnuts will be ranting about for the next five months. Unfortunately, the contradiction between their old programming re Obama being a Muslim and their new programming informing them he is a member of some dangerous heretical Christian sect full of scary black men, won't even cross cause a blip for most of them.

And, of course, Hillary's more robotic supporters now have an extra syllable to add to their Rezko Tourette's syndrome. Most of her online supporters have, for months now, been fervently wishing for, and ominously predicting, some bolt from the blue that would salvage Hillary's candidacy and elevate her to that which she is due. But then, these people have greeted every bad news cycle for Obama as the beginning of the end since the day after Super Tuesday. The fact that they've now reached the point of saying, “hey, this Hannity guy is making sense” shows they are beyond the reach of reason, though one hopes it is a temporary affliction.

In the meantime, here's the question a lot of white people who still have some measure of control over their mental faculties ought to be pondering.

Why is it that when a black preacher who supports a black presidential candidate is discovered to have made some crazy-ass, angry, over-the-top comments from the left over the course of a 40 year career, white people of all political persuasions, go absolutely batshit insane,

. . . and yet . . .

when white preachers who support white presidential campaigns are shown to have consistently been saying crazy-ass, angry, over-the-top things from the right, day in and day out, year after year, sermon after sermon, white people of all political persuasions are, at worst, mildly offended and just shake it off with a "well, you know how those guys are, no real harm in it" and move on to the next thing?

Seriously, why does the former induce such outage, while the latter gets nothing more than a furrowed brow?
Many have said, “but, but, but, this is different- - twenty years, actual pastor rather than a mere supporter, that's what makes all the difference.” Okay, fine. I think that is a transparent rationalization, but let's take it as true. Even if true, it is merely an argument for why Wright is a bigger political problem for Obama than Hagee is for McCain. It is not responsive to the question I asked. My question is this: why are Wright's comments are so much more upsetting to white people than Hagee's?

You've probably guessed I have a hypothesis.   

Fear.

A particular kind of fear. The special fear people experience when they see people who look like themselves crapping on people who don't.  It is, at some level, quite a rational fear rooted in basic human empathy. Your brain sees people being who are down and subconsciously performs an empathic calculation: “how would I feel if that was me getting crapped on? Pretty pissed, I bet.” Anger equals threat. And, unfortunately, here's the part where the f**ked up way the human brain works screws us up. Because this calculation is performed subconsciously, we are aware of the threat—creatures that cannot perceive and act upon threats do not live to reproduce—but we are not consciously aware of the cause of the threat. Lacking conscious awareness, we instead seek to couter the threat while simultaneously constructing myths to protect ourselves from the harsher truth of where that threatening anger comes from. 

Thus begins a vicious cycle. Injustice leads to anger, those who are the target of the anger respond with oppression, oppression leads to more anger which leads to more oppression and so on and so on and so on down through the ages. At a certain point, the original injustice fades into the mists of history, and all that's left is the cycle of anger and repression. 

By day, slaveholders talked among themselves about their childlike, contented slaves singing songs and cheerfully working their lives away for ol' massa, but, at night, rhwy filled the roads with bands of drunken heavily armed crackers   who had a pretty much an open writ to commit whatever mayhem they wanted upon any black person they found out at night without a pass. Much has, of course, changed, but the cycle of oppression, causes anger, anger causes fear, fear causes oppression, oppression causes anger continues down to this day, our ancestors' poisonous bequest to their posterity.

White people have gotten their panties in a bunch over the compilation of Jerimiah Wright's worst five minutes, and eagerly leap to the conclusion that those five minutes are the essence of his entire ministry because, at some level, they know that if they were treated the way African Americans are, and have been, treated in this country, they'd be angry all the time. That anger scares them in a way that the looniest ravings of John Hagee never could. They can't consciously accept that there's a reason for that anger that has something to do with themselves, so, instead, they become outraged about the outrage.

The incessant demands by people like Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly that African Americans constantly prove their undying, unconditional loyalty, display mindless patriotism and feel immense gratitude is the defense mechanism by which they shield themselves from their fear that some blacks might be a little angry at them for crappng on them all the time.  When actually confronted with an angry black person, they pee their pants and become hysterical. Hagee? Sure he says repulsive things about Jews and Catholics, but its not like they have any reason to actully fear him given that they've done nothing to him.

And, therein lies the irony. The white outrage over Wright's comments is born of fear which, in turn, is the product of subconscious awareness of having some resposibility for the creation , or at least redress, of the sources of that anger.   And yet these same who are loudly expressing their fearful outrage say that anyone who tries to explain or understand the causes of Wright's anger is merely acting on the basis of white guilt.

Check out the Guardian on Janaury 5, 2008, for a great peice by Jonathan Raban on "the language of Barack Obama."

Early one morning recently, as I opened the front door to feed the dogs, who work ranch security from the comfort of our big front porch, I heard a most amazing sound.

It was like a symphony of flutes and piccolos--and I confess I don't even know if that's spelled correctly--I am a music lover of all kinds but not an educated one.  Each instrument seemed to be playing its own tune, but somehow, they all melded together in stunning harmony.

I had never heard anything quite like it. 

There is a pasture that sweeps out in front of our house where the horses used to graze, back when we had them.  Mesquite trees, once stunted and bushy as they normally are, have flourished through the years and have now reached a decent height and density.  Of course they still retain their winter starkness, limbs uplifted in intricate lace patterns against the wild West Texas sky.

And one of the trees, which presses against the fence across the road from our front yard, was absolutely full of meadowlarks.

Meadowlarks have a distinctive song, and if I could read and translate music, I would explain it for you.  My own crude interpretation is a sort of "Tweeeet-tum--diddlyum-dum."

A single meadowlark will sing that little melody over and over again.  If I were any sort of naturalist or birdwatcher worth my salt, I could tell you why; that maybe it's a mating song or perhaps a danger warning to other meadowlarks.  But I'm just a girl happy to live in the country and get to hear the meadowlark, unmolested by traffic sounds or neighbors' lawn mowers.

But I had never seen a whole convention of meadowlarks in one tree.  Actually, they spilled out into nearby trees by the dozens, and they lifted their voices in some sort of heavenly chorus--maybe that's it.  More a chorus than a symphony. 

All I know is that the music those little birds made was one of the most beautiful sounds I'd ever heard.

Fearful of frightening them away in some sort of mass startle, I slipped out carefully and, quietly as I could, dumped the dogs' dry food into their dishes.

It bothered the birds not at all, nor did it stop their song even for an instant.

Though it was kind of cold that morning, I left the front door propped open.  This rock house is over one hundred years old, and we don't have things like storm doors--just a plain old country slap-'em screen door.  Hanging from the ceiling of the hallway is a set of wind chimes that I bought because they had been crafted by a musician--a set of pipes that had actually been tuned, so that when the West Texas wind banged them together, they would make song rather than noise.  I often work on fine days, listening to the music of my wind chimes as the breeze through the screen door plays them.

But on this morning, there was no wind.  Just the birds, the glorious birds.  For a while, I just stood in the doorway and let them put on a show for me.

And I thought about the beauty and the sweetness and serenity of that morning, and about this whole political situation these days.

There is a great deal of cacophany on the Internet and on T.V.  and radio.  I am shocked sometimes at the level of discourse.  A candidate we favor gets criticized and we respond with vitriol and rage and sometimes, personal attacks against the person making the statement.

It seems that there is so much anger out there, these days.

Sometimes I wonder where it all actually comes from.  Have we always been this angry?  Are we as angry now as we were in the sixties?  Or has it been provoked, stoked, and manipulated by cynical politicians and their handlers, intent on gaining brownie points any way they can?

Karl Rove was a master of it, aided and abetted by Rush and Ann and their ilk, saying the most hateful and outrageous things imaginable just to make points.

And money.  Lots and lots of money.

When did we lose our ability to debate in civil tones, trading points in a reasonable manner?  Have we never had it?  The Lincoln-Douglas debates were published, you know, in the newspapers and in pamphlets and much read and discussed before the election that made Lincoln president.

When people discussed those debates, did they call one another names and say hateful things?

Hateful politics has always been around; ever since the Revolution.  But we didn't always have the Internet to fuel them.  On the Internet, we can hide behind made-up names and designations, and maybe get away with saying things we wouldn't say if people knew who we were, or could see our faces.

I am who I am; I write under my own name, for better or for worse. 

And, I know exactly where my anger comes from:  an unjust, unnecessary war that could take the lives of family members I love.  But maybe it goes back to the Clinton Crucifixion days, when, living in a conservative Republican stronghold, I was forced to listen to one diatribe after another aimed at a president I revered, and hatred toward his wife that still makes no real sense to me.

After all, nothing the Clintons ever did could have gotten one of those peoples' loved ones killed.

It baffles me sometimes though, since I've always supported the Clintons, that because I support Obama now, I keep being accused of hating her.  I can't criticize her at all without people crawling out of the blogging network to hurl rage at me.  If I seem hard on her sometimes, it is only because she's run such a harsh campaign that I believe is going to harm the party and our chances overall in November.

I know that my own anger toward the Bush administration borders on the unreasonable at times, but I must say, it does bring a sort of sly satisfaction now--seeing all those conservative friends out here who used to rave about the Bush's grow bitter and disappointed in their hero.

Everybody likes to be proved right, sooner or later.

It hurts though, seeing these kinds of attacks and anger within our own party now.  I never thought I would see it, after everything we put up with from conservatives during the nineties.  Bill Clinton's approval ratings nearly always hovered at 60 percent, and yet, right-wingers made up their minds to remove him from office one way or the other, voters be damned.

I never saw anything like it.

It doesn't mean that I think Hillary now should have the nomination; not because I don't like her, but because I fear very much that she cannot be elected, and if a Democrat is not elected in November, this war will go on and my family will pay.  It's that simple to me.

Still, I don't see why we can't discuss these matters without getting so angry at one another.  We will need each other in November.  We can't be getting into irreconcilable family feuds now, can we?

Standing by my front door, listening to the breathtaking song of the meadowlark, I was reminded of the basic things of life that make it worth living:  the love of family and friends, home, spirituality, work we enjoy, a cause we believe in.

These things do not change, no matter what goes on in Washington.

Sometimes, maybe we should all take a moment to listen to the song of the meadowlark--or any beautiful thing that brings peace to the soul:  laughter of a child, a pet's happy bark or purr, conversation with spouse or friend, music or the sound of rain or whatever brings us joy.

We should go there, to that place of peace, as often as we need to, so that when we come back to place of disagreement, we will know that sometimes, even the most discordant melodies, played together in just the right way, can make a symphony.

Look the reverend Wright affair centers around rhetoric and history. First Wright is a classic black power preacher circa late 60's early 70's. Basically the rhetoric is America has a long and entrenched Imperialist and racist history and one must shout that fact from the roof tops because the essence of American life is to deny those two central facts. It was meant to be incendiary, because black power rhetoric was meant to counter the conciliatory speech of black politicos. 

There are numerous problems with black power politics and rhetoric, but to be honest, its other black folks who will suffer the consequences, not white America. Despite America's dread fear of angry black people, there has never been nor shall there be some black power cabal exacting revenge on a sleeping white populace. And yes that includes the oh so scary black panthers. 

In the 60's and 70's black power rhetoric was common, however in our age in which we are in full denial of our national culpability in some very violent and unsavory deeds, this sounds like the essence of treason. How dare anyone speak ill of America after 9/11. We live in era in which patriotism is uncontested. By patriotism I don't mean the simple love of ones country but the idiotic symbolic display of this adoration. 

What is difficult for white Americans to understand is that patriotism is intimately linked with white supremacy--see FoX News if you have any doubts. Black men and women, from the south side of Chicago who have enlisted and fought in every war this country waged returned home to segregation, racial violence and the grind of everyday bigotry. They don't wear flag lapel pins, they don't joyously sing "God Bless America" at every opportunity--why the hell would they. Wright is the pastor of THIS community. And their experience vis-a-vis patriotism is complicated, and completely untranslatable to white America--liberals and reactionaries alike. 

I can only lend a story. My uncle, a good upstanding bourgeois black man was a decorated Korean war veteran. His family has been in this country since the 1700's and the men have fought in virtually every American war. Come veterans day and memorial day he flew the flag and occasionally marched in the parade. However when you spoke to him about Vietnam and the wartime experience of younger men in the family and their disillusionment and anger. He would say, they're right--this is a senseless war and he'd quote Mohammed Ali's phrase, Ho Chi Minh never called me a n------. Now, if my uncle were on FuX News stating this, he would be considered a commie, ingrate--the poster child of the 'angry black man'. But for him, America's imperial wars are not something to be proud of. Recounting Korea he would openly weep recalling that he had to kill so many people of color and come home to a country that treated him like dirt and thought of him as an ingrate, despite his service. Not just military service but service in Civil Rights movement--black political enfranchisement was not a gift from up high--Johnson or Kennedy--black folks, like my uncle fought tooth and nail, gave their blood for those rights. 

This is the context of Pastor Wright. And as indelicate and crude as his sermons may be that anger speaks to a social reality that defies translation to MSM and many progressives. With poor, isolated black America, you have at once some of the greatest patriots in DEED-they serve in the wars, die for "democracy", yet they are critics of the hypocrisy of the very system they are expected to cherish. There is a deep history here which sadly, but with little surprise is ignored. In order for Obama to truly address his relation to his Pastor he would have to sit down and give a three hour exposition on the history of this country. He'd undoubtedly lose the nomination of course. My sympathies are with him and anyone who in this climate of abject ignorance is made to explain the complicated legacy of race in this country. 

The Chicago Tribune Editorial Board's view of the definitive question and answer session with Obama.

Looks like it is time to dust off the kindergarten essays.

Sorry for the sensational title, but I suppose it caught your attention, no?

Very few people go "congregation hopping" in their lifetime.  The fact of the matter is, the congregation you join in your youth usually becomes a part of your identity.  Everyone you know goes to that congregation.  Friends, family, co-workers you see every week or maybe every day for 20 years.   It becomes a part of your extended family.  

Unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the principles the congregation or community is founded upon,  I believe its actually MORE ETHICAL to stay and change things from within that community when you notice something you disagree with.  Just picking up and leaving your community and the people within it is not only cowardly, it is also irresponsible.  

In a lot of ways, I think I probably feel the same way about the U.S. as Obama feels about his church.  I was born and raised in the U.S.  There were some things I disliked about growing up here as someone with yellow skin and slanty eyes, but there are so many more things I love about growing up here.  Its a part of my identity. Its a part of my being -- I am an American.   I am appalled of my country's illegal invasion and torturing of Iraqis and its racial stereotyping of Muslims and brown-skinned people.  I am also quite thoroughly disgusted by my current government and the people some of the people who represent it.
 
Anytime I wanted to I could just "quit" America and move to Japan without a visa and live just as easy a life. Yet despite that fact, I choose to stay here and change our current situation from within.  Everyone I love lives here, everything I have ever known exists on these lands.  I choose to fight to change my community rather than run away from it.  Do I agree with everything that my country does or says?  No.  But I love it for what its founded upon and the spirit of what it represents.  It is who I am.

So there's this rhetorical figure called antithesis.  It involves contrasting two starkly opposing ideas, to emphasize the distance between them.  It can come off heavy-handed in a written text, but it's a staple of just about any of your great oral traditions, from Greece to hip hop.  If African American oratory were a toolbox, antithesis would be its hammer--it's the tool you use the most often because it's so damn versatile and powerful.  It can emphasize the chasm between the way things are and the way they ought to be.  That's what it's doing in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 1963 speech at the march on Washington:

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

It can dramatize how starkly two separate realities differ.  That's what it's doing when young Frederick Douglass looks out at the ships on Chesapeake Bay and thinks of them:

You are loose from your moorings, and are free; I am fast in my chains, and a slave.  You move merrily before the gentle gale; and I sadly before the bloody whip.  You are freedom's swift-winged angels, that fly round the world; I am confined in bands of iron!

It can measure the extent to which conventional wisdom misrepresents reality.  That's what it's doing in the Jeremiah Wright, Jr. sermon that seems to have raised the most hackles:

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America.
No! No No!
God damn America … for killing innocent people.
God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans.
God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.

See, it works because "damn" is the opposite of "bless."  You may or may not like the vehemence of the condemnation, but I don't think there's any doubt that Wright is not "damning America" in a theological sense; he's condemning particular actions and ideologies.  He's saying the criminal justice system plays God with the lives of Americans, and that it does so unequally.  He's calling attention to the inappropriateness of complacent piety about this country when it's screwing its citizens over so badly.  He's expressing some fairly widely shared progressive sentiments, in words that may be jarring but that most certainly have their place in the tradition in which he's grounded.  He's making a connection between Jesus's teachings and the life we actually live, a connection that black churches have emphasized ever since their inception, when they were militant in rejecting the ways in which southern clergy were using the Bible to justify slavery and counsel "submission."  I've heard, explicitly and implicitly, an assumption on the part of commenters that religious services should be apolitical.  Black churches have never been apolitical.  They never had that option; their existence was political in itself.

I don't imagine that the general public does or should know that tradition; I don't really care if it's interested.  But there's a problem with excerpting the words of a sermon from their context and interpreting them as, say, a campaign press release.  Those words have a place, and in that church, to that congregation, they mean something that you can't necessarily read correctly outside of it.  There's also a problem with excerpting one snippet from one sermon from the entire spiritual life of a faith community and making it representative.  Wright's anger is the flip side of his lifelong work for social justice, and Wright is just one pastor among an entire community of people committed to that goal.

So could we come up with just a little outrage about the religious policing that's going on here to go along with our tortured forecasts of what the GOP is going to do with Wright in the fall? 

Although I read TPM each day, all I read is that Obama is great, and Hillary is old hat. Since I support Hillary, I wish Josh would at least be neutral about who he wants put in the White House. I think there are a few other Democrats who think as I do. Otherwise I may and go and read only the National Review.

As many devout supporters of Senator Barack Obama, yesterday could be viewed as "black Friday" - and that is not a bad pun.

It was a day that we saw our beloved Barack under siege. We wanted to lash out for him.We wanted to throw tomatoes at the TV (Fox News chief among them). We wanted to tell less committed Obama supporters, hang in there, don't doubt what you feel, what you think, what you know.

We scoured the usual places: TPM, TNR, HuffPost, Politico, the Page, Atlantic -- looking everywhere for signs it was going to be okay.

The we turned to Keith. And he was talking to Jonathan Alter and then Barack spoke. He was eloquent - but he was Barack. Why can't he push back harder, why doesn't he get angry, why why --- because he is Barack, He is a unique amalgamam of brains, diversity, vision and dignity.

And then a series of things happened:
Sen Obama went before the Chicago Sun Times and Chicago Tribune for over an hour and a half each ad answered every question on Antonin Rezko they had. Showed every document he had related to this. And low and behold today; those newspapers who have spent 16 months looking for "more" on this dubious alliance said - they were satisifed. That Barack Obama answered all their questions.
Today the Chicago Tribune editorial says:
"When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict."

Then on the WRIGHT matter;
David Brooks on PBS noted the remarkable dignity with how Sen Obama was handling all this.
Doris Kearns Goodwin on Tim Russert said a true test of Obama's ability to lead will be our he handles diversity in the public arena.
David Kuo on Belief.Net wrote
"Some have said Obama needs to give a Checkers Speech. He doesn't. He has done nothing wrong. His pastor holds extreme views. He has clarified and distinguished his views from his pastor's. Done. The speech he should give is a speech about the nature of faith and politics - a speech that reminds us all about the dangers of confusing the political and the spiritual. We need that speech."

It is Saturday afternoon and now I watch Barack speak in Indiana giving that speech. He is  reminding me (and all of us) of why we supported him in the first place. Why he first got into politics - that he knew we were all ready for something new, and he says:

"This campaign started on the basis that we are one America"

"What I continue to believe in is that this conutry wants to move beyond these kinds of divisions. That this country wants somethign different"

"I just want to say to everybody here as someone who was born into a diverse family, as somebody who has little pieces of america all in me ----- I will not allow us to lose this moment, where we can not forget about our past, and not ignore the very real forces of racial inequality and gender inequality and the other things that divide us--- and not forget them but not let them divide us "
"and remember what Bobby Kennedy said ---it is within our power to join together to truly make a United States of America ---- and that we have to do that not just so our children can live together in a more peaceful country and a more peaceful world but we can join together to solve our nations problems.
We cannot solve healthcare - divided
We cannot solve terrorism - divided
We cannot take care of our veterans - divided
We cannot educate our children - divided

We have to come together
That is why you are here
That is why we are going to join this country
That is why we are going to win this election"

And that is why I know am going to be alright and than Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

The website for the national UCC has posted a rather lengthy article in support of Rev. Wright and the Trinity UCC congregation.  I found it to be an interesting read - especially when it would be very easy for church leaders to distance themselves from Rev. Wright's comments. 

Enjoy!

This poll really means little.  What it amounts to is generalized polling of the entire country.  It does not follow a primary, or a delegate count, or anything else that amounts to a final result.

The commentary that this might be fallout from the Wright brouhaha just seems to pile on a difficult to verify piece of speculation on top of already meaning-poor data.

All in all, its just a product of the hype which is all that's keeping the Clinton campaign in the race.  The Superdelegates are her only hope for putting her over the top, and she has to win most of them to get the nomination.

We have to let ourselves step back and take a look at the bigger picture.  Otherwise, we'll scare ourselves into supporting a candidate with inferior support and probably scare ourselves out of winning an election that shouldn't be so easy to lose.

"On no stormy sea has Penn been more of an anchor for Clinton than on Iraq, so far the defining issue of the 2008 election. "I don't think there's any gap in their thinking," said Douglas Schoen, Penn's former business partner." -  from Clinton's PowerPointer: With Data and Slides, a Pollster Guides Campaign Strategy, by Anne Kornblut, Washington Post, April 30, 2007.

Senator Clinton has grown more aggressive in trying to call into question Senator Obama's credentials as a potential Commander-in-Chief. The Obama campaign has consistently taken the position that his judgment in opposing the war in Iraq early on is what distinguishes him from Sen. Clinton in this argument. Obama justifiably claims that he more clearly saw the potential pitfalls of diverting attention away from the war in Afghanistan and towards a dubious adventure in Iraq. Obama clearly has the better of the argument, and there is little to debate. Even should we be able to extricate ourselves from Iraq with something resembling success, few would call the war that Sen. Clinton helped enable an exercise in good judgment.

More than just displaying better judgment about strategy and tactics however, Obama's position showed disregard for what was at the time considered politically smart. In other words, his strategic and tactical position in foreign policy was not swayed by political expediency. It is easy to forget that early on the war in Iraq was politically popular. Even more importantly, for Democrats, it was considered a political poison pill. Not supporting the war would give Republicans an opportunity for criticism that Democrats were weak. At the time Sen. Clinton's vote for the war seemed politically smart for someone who had their eye on the Presidency. She may have seen that war was potentially a mistake, and she may even have been personally against it, but her political calculations dictated against opposing the war.

And this is precisely why Sen. Clinton is, in fact, weak on foreign policy.  The question is not, "What does the President do when the Red Phone rings at 3am?" The question is, "Who does the President go to for advice when he or she puts down the phone?" From her vote on the war, it is fair to argue that as President, Sen. Clinton would pick the phone right back up and call a pollster like Mark Penn. Her judgment on the Iraq war vote demonstrated that she is too willing think of foreign policy not in the national or global interest, but in terms of her own political position vis-a-vis electoral strategies.

A similar argument could be made about the first term of Bill Clinton's administration, and in fact the Democratic Party in general for quite a while. Foreign policy was secondary to domestic concerns. Not until the second term did it seem that the Clinton team was willing to engage in international leadership. The slow transformation in US policy toward the Balkans, from disengagement to reluctant engagement to leadership is a telling case study. By the end of that second term it seemed that lessons had been learned and the center-left of US politics had started to formulate a position on the post-Cold War international security environment. Hillary's vote on the war was a clear indication however that she was still thinking of these issues in the context of domestic electoral politics. At 3:15am, in the wake of a crisis, she's still going to call her pollster, whether its Mark Penn or someone else. Over the course of the campaign its become clear that those who have learned the lessons of the new international affairs have mostly gravitated to the Obama team. Those are the people that I want to see called in when the crisis happens.

xpost from Daily Kos

To all you Wobblers,

So you thought it was going to be a cakewalk?

Welcome to the real world.  

You thought change was going to be pretty.  And that the lions were going to lay down and let it happen.

Nope.  But this is the time to show your resolve.  If you are not willing, then move on, nothing to see here.

If you choose to continue, warning, there will be blood.

I sense that some of you can not handle the heat.  And that is just what the MSM was counting on.  Especially Faux News Nation.

That tape did not come out for the people who were never going to vote for Senator Obama.  It came out for YOU. Just for you.  Don't you feel special? Cut and spliced, just like you like it.  Scary.  A black man saying  'God Damn America.'  Thank God he didn't have a gun!  

They already manipulated you to think that a flag lapel pin is a patriotic indicator.  That you must be shifty, untrustworthy if you do not put your hand over your heart when the Star-Spangled Banner or National Anthem or their song of choice plays.

They got you jumping through so many hoops that you do not even go BALLISTIC when the report comes out that after 600,000 pages were looked through, they could not find anything that connected Iraq to Al-Queada.  

You are jumping through hoops as BILLIONS are spent on the war and I bet that you, like myself, don't know where it went.  But do you even care?

You are jumping through fiery hoops while THOUSANDS have died and are wounded in Iraq and there were no weapons of mass destruction. None, nada, didn't find a single one. I bet there are some people over there going, "God Damn America."   I'm willing to take bets on that.

And you do nothing? Say nothing?  Are you not going crazy with rage???

Well I guess not, because you are all so worried about Senator Obama's ex pastor.  That is the most important news in Faux News Nation.

They might as well put a ring through your nose and lead you around because you need them to tell you what to do and how to feel. When to be outraged and when to feel joy.  They play you like a violin.  They know which notes will make the beautiful music of your FEAR.

Do you really think that the MSM has your best interests at heart after all of this?

Pastor Wright is fiery and if you have seen the whole tape, know the history of the country you profess to love then you would know that the preacher was not too far off his mark.  He was not just talking to his congregation, he could be easily talking to you, trying to tell you something that you should hear. It is not just Black people getting screwed.  They think you are niggers too, even though you got white skin.  They'll send your sons and daughters to be cannon fodder to line their pockets as well.   His words may not be easy to hear, but time after time, they screw all of us.

But perhaps you just want ... snake oil sold by flag pin wearing, hand over the heart patriotic ASSHOLES who laugh all the way to the bank while you shill out $4.00/gallon for your car.

Pastor Wright is a veteran of our armed forces, has work for years against social injustice and he lived in a time of 'strange fruit', which is the term used for bodies hanging from trees after being lynched.  In his own country, that he fought for.  So understand that he may be ... over the top.

With that said, Pastor Wright is NOT Senator Obama.  And if you can not separate that, will not see that, then I believe that we're all fucked yet again.  

PS - I am angry because I had HOPED that we could do better than this.  There is no spoon!

"Don't get fooled again."  The Who

Janeo

Mark Penn may have over-stated the case for Pennsylvania. Neither the nomination or election hinge on it. That said, the super-delegates would do well to consider the Power of Purple. It is obvious that HRC is stronger in the big purple states, and will, in all likelihood, win Pennsylvania. Does that reality equate to an automatic victory in these states in the general election? No, it does not. What it does point out is her greater strength in these swing states, and greater likelihood of carrying them. 

She has the key constituency....working whites, blue-collar hispanics and women. McCain would be difficult for HRC to beat in Ohio and Texas, but it's possible. In Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida her chances greatly improve.
The problem for Obama is McCain in any of these states. I don't see Obama winning in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Texas against McCain. Florida would even be a dog-fight for him. If either Democrat could control these states, hold the traditional big blue states of California and New York, the election is half won. Setting aside the delegate and super-delegate issue momentarily... HRC looks like a much better bet. If Michigan and Florida are re-run, and Hillary wins them, that just strengthens her argument for the nomination. If not, the question remains more open. My feeling is she will win Florida, if an agreement for a re-do can be reached, and will squeak by in Michigan. For the moment, all eyes seem to be on Pennsylvania, at least for the Clinton Campaign. Obama's camp is fighting there, but they are looking beyond Pennsylvania to some extent, and for good reason.

Perhaps unlike the vast majority of bloggers, posters, pundits and general public, I was not shocked at what Geraldine Ferraro said but how the Obama campaign lost a great opportunity to reinforce its core message.

For the record, I'm a Clinton supporter, even though I recognize her mistakes and there are things about her that I don't like.

The Ferraro story was unearthed by the blogs and pushed into the mainstream media, as I wrote in my post about the blogosphere. The story was instantly given a nasty racial slant, followed by a predictable explosion. What puzzled me most was the Ferraro reaction to this controversy. I admit that at first I completely misunderstood her message. I thought it was racism versus sexism debate. But then I read the entire interview.

Ferraro basically implied that Obama was pushed to be where he is because he is black. She said the same thing about the Jesse Jackson campaign. She also said that she was in the same place, too - as a "historic female VP candidate". In other words, being black is what makes Obama candidacy historic and unique.

It's true that because Ferraro is a Clinton supporter she phrased her comment in a partisan way. However, I was astounded that Axelrod followed the blogosphere's "racist" slant. He missed a GREAT opportunity to regain the message control for Obama.

What Axelrod should have said in response is this:

- yes, part of the reason Obama is a historic candidate is that he is black. The media constantly frames this as a battle between two firsts: a woman and an African-American.

- what's more, the unique story of Barack Obama, his distinct life experience and personal story is what informed his views and positions. His life and identify is what enabled him to rise above the history of division, politics of yesterday, etc, etc, etc

In other words, Axelrod could have used this incident to once again promote the basic promise of Obama and in fact use the Ferraro comments to give further essense to his candidacy.

And even more ironically, this would have enabled Obama to deal much more squarely with the Wright scandal. Had he said: "yes, my life and race makes me who I am", he would have now been able to say: "this is exactly why I want to rise above the division".

Sadly for Obama, because Axelrod tried to set a racist trap for Clinton, the Wright controversy raised doubts about the true nature of his judgement.

Like I said in my previous post, I blame the blogosphere for driving it like this. And I blame Axelrod for not being smarter and wiser. Every time he tries to use Clinton's methods against Clinton, he loses.

The discussion of Rev. Wright's sermon clips (not his sermons; just a few soundbites, remember) has highlighted for me how one-sided our so-called "discussions" of race often are.  We would be so much better off if we had more black representation in the media, in the commentariat, in the blogosphere (not to mention, in other positions of power).  The whole Rev. Wright issue is being presented from the perspective of isolated white folk -- shocked, shocked to find such anger in the black community! 

Rev. Wright's sermons play very differently in the black community.  Particularly for the older generation.  There is a lot to be angry about.  It's way better to express it than to bottle it up.  Then you can start to deal with it, to take constructive action.  Hell, if I was black, I think I'd be at least that angry.  Being white, I have the luxury of being philosophical and judgmental if I want to.

Meanwhile, as a Chicagoan, I know that Trinity UCC is a church with an excellent reputation for constructive work in its community -- the black south side of Chicago.  It is full of smart, constructive, social-justice minded folks, leaders in the black community in Chicago and beyond, leaders in business and politics and entertainment.  Trinity builds strong, community minded leaders.

Let's look at what Obama has become, after 20 years in that church: an amazingly unifying leader, bringing people together across racial, ethnic, age, and political divisions.  From his earliest public life, as an organizer, as a state senator, in the Democratic convention speech, in his first book, written before his political career, as well as in his second book, written as a part of his political career, Obama is clear about his approach:  he wants to unify us as Americans and help us live up to our highest ideals.

My favorite example of his unifying spirit at the moment is the old white working class, small town Wisconsin man who was asked by NPR who he was going to vote for in the primary.  He said, "I think I'm going to vote for that black boy.  He makes a lot of sense." (or words to that effect)

As a white woman who can recall being chewed out years ago as a camp counselor for referring to a ten year old black kid as a boy, I cringed when I heard that -- and then I smiled, because I suspect Barack smiled when he heard it too.  He is helping us transcend a whole era in race relations, move into a new period where we can have a new level of conversation about what we want our society to be.

Not an era that will be post-racial politics-- let's not kid ourselves.  But one in which the conversation will have progressed from the anger of Rev. Wright's generation.  Perhaps if we are lucky to a place where we can discuss substance rather than just react and react and react from places of mutual ignorance and pain.

I felt excruciating pain watching Barack denounce his pastor on CNN last night, and overwhelming admiration at his ability to remain calm and true to his high ideals, even when attacked in a very personal way.  When Anderson Cooper asked at the end whether Obama could sing God Bless America or not, I was so offended for Barack I would have happily throttled Cooper.  But Barack only smiled and said that he didn't think Anderson would want to hear him singing, defusing the tension with what looked like an easy smile (although it couldn't have been easy).

This is my defnition of a leader, guys.  He's taking us to a new place, a place we didn't even quite know was there before he pointed it out, a place some of us haven't quite been able to believe in yet.  He's calling forth the best in everyone-- including the black community.  I can't imagine watching Anderson Cooper's self-righteous arrogance last night if I was a young African-American and not wanting to smash the TV (I'm a middle-aged white woman, and I wanted to smash the TV)-- but Barack is showing us all a different path, leading us from the angry path (quite literally, in the case of Rev. Wright) to higher ground.

So, after much agony over this whole episode, here is what I think.  Anyone who thought we would get through this campaign without some excruciating discussion of race was naive.  And this is it.  The question is, how will Obama handle it, and how will we, his supporters and potential supporters, handle it.

Obama, I think, is coming through well in his response.  I do not think anyone can ask ever again if he is tough enough.  The question then is, are we tough enough?  Will we let the white media crucify him?  Will we run in fear to another candidate so that we never have to discuss race this frankly again?  Will we tsk, tsk, and watch silently to see what happens next? 

Or will we stand up for the man who has spent his whole public career defining a new approach the things that divide us, a new way to move us toward the vision of an America that tries to live up to its ideals, rather than make excuses for why it isn't possible.  Yes we can.

TPM reports that big Clinton donors are pressuring Howard Dean to seat delegates from the rule-breaking elections in Florida and Michigan:

In an interview with Election Central, venture capitalist Alan Patricof, a member of Hillary's finance committee and one of the Democratic Party's most influential fundraisers, said that he'd privately urged Dean to do more to get the Florida and Michigan delegations seated -- something that's crucial to the Hillary camp's hopes of closing the gap with Obama.

That such an influential fundraiser is unhappy with the DNC could prove problematic, since the DNC of course relies on such figures to keep the money flowing in.

Obviously, this will annoy people who don't like to see the goalposts moved in the middle of a primary game.
But there are many reasons we should resist this gesture that have nothing to do with the Presidential race.  If you care about down-ticket races, or support Dean's fifty-state strategy, or just don't like to see the Democratic Party pushed around by wealthy donors, today would be a good day to donate to the DNC.  Show Howard we care!
Whatever you contribute, add an extra $.01, so they know it comes from the blogosphere.  They're doing it over at DailyKos too, so you won't be alone.

When it comes down to it, there are two arguments for not seating delegations in some form from Florida and Michigan. Neither seems to mesh with the idealistic penumbra of the Obama campaign.

The first rationale is based on enforcing clearly stated DNC policy. This "a deal is a deal" mindset values narrow procedural concerns over fairness. There is no fundamental principle at stake in enforcing DNC policy in this instance that comes close to balancing out the harshness of the outcome.

Better to redo both states than to punish their voters via disenfranchisement. The lesson will still have been imparted and the principle sufficiently upheld.

The other, mostly unspoken, rationale is to protect the perception of Obama as a viable candidate. If, as appears
likely, he loses in Pennsylvania, losses in Florida and Michigan would be devastating, despite the likelihood of his retaining a small lead before superdelegates are locked in.

Under this scenario, many superdelegates may feel more justified in supporting Clinton, perhaps tilting the contest to her. This is the outcome Obama is seeking to avoid at all costs.

That's fine, but perhaps its time for Obama supporters to lower the dudgeon levels.

Before anyone accuses Obama of intellectual dishonesty, or writes him off because of some things his ex-minister said, listen to some things that Obama said.  In 2006.  It's not a clip. It's an entire speech on the subject matter at hand:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938

My concern is how the media is handling this story. Much has already been said about the double standard with John McCain. But there is also the question of providing appropriate context. M.J. Rosenberg alludes to this in his post.

Much of this controversy revolves around 3 sermons: one after 9/11, one in 2003, and one in 2008 as Rev Wright was retiring. I’ve been in church all my life (white churches and black churches) and I’m pretty sure I’ve heard more than 3 controversial sermons. If Rev. Wright has only delivered 3 controversial sermons, then he is an angel not a demon. So there’s probably more out there, and the media declares “breaking news” each time they find a new one, instead of providing the appropriate context.

In a white church in Dallas, I once heard a preacher say, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, and another preacher say that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for Voodoo and sexuality in New Orleans (this was a preacher who had a church in New Orleans).

Compared to some of these preachers, Rev. Wright’s first principles are mostly sound, though his language is clearly inflammatory, and his words are way over the line. Indeed we are responding to his language, not to his message. He could have replaced “God damn America” with “God is upset with America” for injustice to poor and black people, and we would all have agreed.

Some of his principles are unsound and based in paranoia, but not most, and I think this is what Obama tries to communicate in his video post (below). But whether the media provides this necessary context will determine how this issue is received by the audience.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_7piGy0u43c&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_7piGy0u43c&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

1. Senator Clinton: the first official campaign statement regarding your opinion that delegates for Florida and Michigan should be seated came on January 25th. This was after votes held in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. It was also just one day before polls showed you would likely lose in South Carolina and just four days before Florida would hold its primary.  

Why didn't your campaign protest the idea of the delegates being taken away from MI and FL back in September when you signed the no campaign pledge or in the several months after that when you were campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire where voters there take the early primary status seriously?   Follow-up: If it was such a great injustice to the voters of these states, shouldn't you have protested the DNC plan to strip the delegates immediately when the punishment was proposed?    2.  You've made foreign policy experience an issue in this campaign and said that you are the better Democrat on foreign policy and would be best in a crisis. Two of the examples you use have been Northern Ireland and Kosovo. Is it fair to use the best foreign policy examples of your husband's Presidency when you had no meaningful role in negotiations with heads of state and no actual decision making authority?   Followup question, probably the most important foreign policy issue that has come before you as an elected official was the vote to authorize President Bush to use military force against Iraq. Were the 23 Senators who voted against the war authorization, which included 21 Democrats, ultimately proved that they were correct to oppose the AUMF resolution?   3. How can your campaign claim that your primary victories in states such as Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and California are good examplesof your strength as a candidate for the General Election, while then your campaign also dismisses the same conclusion for the states won by Senator Obama such as Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, and Colorado?   Follow-up: If you are the nominee in November, many people have said that your candidacy will be the greatest chance the GOP has to mobilize a base of voters who are voting simply against the Clinton name and who otherwise are not going to be motivated in November. Could a Clinton candidacy in November have an adverse affect on "down ticket" Democrats running for elected office in states like North Carolina, Kansas, Iowa, and Washington? 


If you enjoyed this post, please click the recommend this link and share with other readers.

First, it started with Sean Hannity on Fox news network last night.  He actually said that he wanted Obama to resign from the Senate and for him to leave the race.  They then treated him like someone on the witness stand on their interview with him - which is horrendous.  Today there's this article from the National Review saying that Barack is done: 

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmE1M2U2NmQ3NzFlNDE1MmNlZDZkYjBjZjhiY2ZiYjQ=


In it he says:

"Instead, we have heard first “cherry-picking” and then that the reverend does not represent his own views, but not a hint of contrition for an association with such a demagogue and hate-monger. I think this will not go away, and ultimately damage Obama beyond repair, for it strikes at the heart of his very candidacy—that he was a healer who has transcended racial divides, and was introducing a new credo of transparent and painfully forthright politics. The Wright scandal and his reaction thus far belie both. This was precisely why Hillary stayed in the race, and mirabile dictu, perhaps what she imagined would eventually transpire."


I was initially sad last night that this all broke out.  I knew it was a damaging blow to the Obama campaign.  But then I got angry hearing Hannity and now the National Review take this position. 


Why should someone leave the campaign because someone else said something?  Its wrong what was said, I don't deny that.  But does this mean Obama should just quit?  Is this as damaging as it may initially seem?  And what about McCain using Cunningham as his intro speaker and the horribly race/religion baiting tirade he went into?  Ah, how quickly the media forgets.


The angrier I got, the more I wanted to take it to the Right Wing Nuts.  This whole Clinton/Obama thing has distracted us from the true goal of this election - to upend the horrendous right wing craziness that has defined the last 8 years, 16 if you count the 1992-2000 Congress.  While I don't support Clinton and her pseudo-Rove ways, I cannot support the right wing at all.  We must resolve to fight this through and support Obama in this trying of time.   I was wavering on even voting for Clinton prior to this ridiculousness, but now, seeing as how much vitriol the Right Wing spews towards one of the most inspiring presidential candidates we've had, I can't sit back and let them get the White House.


So to the Clinton supporters, I can't say I agree with her tactics, and I'm still an Obama man.  But I will vote for her and support her in the GE.  Will you join us in our defense of Obama? 


For the Obama supporters, lets stop bickering.  Let us support Clinton in the GE if she gets nominated.  Let us support Obama through this, his most challenging point of his campaign. 

Curt Weldon apparently spent February 14th and 15th posting article about himself on his 100 or so blogs. (Scroll <http://curtweldon.vox.com/library/post/curt-weldon-nutrition-and-children.html?_c=feed-atom">here</a> for a list of Weldon's blogs.) Is Curt crazy or is this a dress rehearsal for the day Weldon and his CIA buddies take over the intertoobz? Will the day come when every single Google search returns an article about Crazy Curt?

Sigh. Just one more thing to worry about.

 

 

This was in response to a previous blog about how the Obama campaign is being killed by blogs.  Its a good read.  But here's my response:

Its nice to hear a well reasoned argument from a Clinton supporter. Thanks for posting this - it seems that on both sides of the court, there's far too much name calling, derision, and absolutes thrown around in a horribly discouraging discourse. As for your points, I disagree with them. I'm one of those Clinton to Obama voters that may or may not fall into your second group. The overall message of your blog I think is also at odds with mine. I think the blogosphere helps Obama. In light of recent events, its hard to keep the feeling of hope. I go to to the blogosphere and read support from fellow Obama supporters and it does alleviate my fears somewhat. Also, the blogs rarely are reflected by the MSM. There's no statistic to refer to, but my initial thoughts are that the blogs tend to stray toward Obama - which in recent days has not been the case in the MSM. You said: "However, my view is that most of the blogosphere backs Obama for reasons that have little to do with the man himself: - he was initially propped by anti-war liberals - he was further strengthened by Clinton-haters - then some of the public bought into the politics of change " I think he was initially propped by his books and his speech at the 2004 DNC, which in my mind, is one of the best speeches we've seen in a generation. At least thats where I got my initial favorable thoughts of him from (I was initially a Clinton supporter) - from that speech and also from reading his books which is a must read for any Democrat. Your second point is true, he was strengthened by Clinton-haters, but that doesn't make moot support for Obama. It means that people got so tired of the Clinton way of politics, that they were looking for a different candidate who embodied a different style of politics. No matter what has happened so far, it cannot be denied that he has still run a different, very transparent campaign. This accounts not only for the Clinton to Obama voters like myself, but the new voters who were simply looking for a new voice. I think your last point is the weakest. To say that people "bought" into Obama's voice of change is an accusation of ignorance. I can't agree with that. I'm as critical and skeptical as they come - I'm a surgeon. We need to be. And I don't simply buy into fads or phenomena without a healthy dose of research. There is a large group of successful and smart people who support Obama as well. I doubt that they simply just lost all reason and fell into his camp. I think there are a lot of factors into why people support Obama. I could list them all, but here are some of mine: -He inspires people to unite and do better for others and themselves. I haven't heard anything inspirational from Clinton or McCain other than a constant barrage of I'm going to do this for you and I'm going to do this for her and I'm going to do this for him... etc. Its not about we, its about her. -He has shown consistent judgement that has followed my own beliefs on foreign policy. He is against the Iraq War. He voted against having Iran labelled as terrorists. He supported precision strikes against al-Qaeda in Pakistan, which Bush eventually voted for. Clinton voted for the war, and I can't ignore that. -His economic policy is actually sound. He wants to create a National Reinvestment Bank to invest in fixing the infrastructure of the US to make it more palatable to business and commerce. Even Bloomberg applauded Obama on this. For those who care, Jim Cramer of Mad Money likes Obamas plans as well. -On health care, I know a thing or two being a surgeon. His plans on health care are similar to my own thoughts on it. Of course we all want Universal health care - but delivering it is not easy. Making it a mandate is a bad position to start discussions with the Republicans from. Also, you have to reform health care without losing the excellence of care it can achieve - making it a mandate could render health care as delivered by the government as badly managed as social security. When you're dealing with people's lives, you don't want that. -On family values and personal responsibility - Obama has spoken many times about how and why we need to look at ourselves to make the fundamental change. He talks often about turning off the TV, doing homework with your kids, etc. He loves his family, has a good family, and clearly relishes his time with them. He's the most family value friendly Democrat nominee we have had in a while. -On Education. He is the only candidate to talk about how our country is failing our kids. He has laid out specific plans to jumpstart this. He wishes to reform No Child Left Behind. He wants to increase the wages of teachers. He wants to give college attendees a 4k college credit. He wants to emphasize Math and Science teaching. He wants to teach our kids by not focusing on teaching for a test. He wants to create scholarships for those getting degrees in teaching. -On the environment. He maintains a strong lead on this as well. He wishes to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. He wants 25% of all energy to come from renewable sources. He plans to invest in developing training programs for skilled workers in the green technology field. -Finally, his thoughts on ethics are some of the strongest I've seen from any candidates in recent years. In Chicago, he worked with the police to get them to be more transparent in their interrogations. This meant videotaping them. Initially resistant to this, Obama reasoned with them that it would reduce lawsuits and reinforce trust of the community in the police. He was right. The transparency produced by simply having a camera recording all interrogations as required by law has reduced interrogation based lawsuits for that department. Read about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303_pf.html. He also has released his tax returns, his earmarks, and does not take lobbyist money. He's worked on and helped pass several laws regarding this in his time as Senator. Finally, you're last point: "Disclaimer: I support Clinton because I think she will be a stronger president. I don't need to have an inspirational leader in the White House - I find role models in more appropriate places. I need someone who can fix the mess and who knows how the goverment (the largest employer in the US) works and how to make it do what you need." First, you cannot assume that the government is like any other employer or company. They have some of the best benefits in the world, and it is hard to change personnel in a government run department. I work at a County Hospital - its damn near impossible to get change for the better by simply demanding it. People who work for the government are good people, they just need something to work for and to be reminded of the goal of their job - to make America a better place. Second, running a campaign is a microcosm of running a government. Obama has run an incredible campaign. Think of what he had to overcome to get to this point: -He is a black man named Barack Hussein Obama. Contrary to what Ferraro said, he is not lucky to be an African-American. -He was relatively unknown until his 2004 speech -He did not have access to the "top talent" in campaigning -He was not even supported initially by his own race. He in fact was losing to Clinton among African-Americans at the start -He required more secret service than any other candidate in recent memory. That's because he's had so many death threats against him - it just reinforces how silly Ferraro's argument is. Think of what Clinton had to run with: -Name recognition -Support of the DLC -Support of both Women and African Americans and Latinos -A large fundraising base (that rolodex of hers) -Access to the best campaign people in the Democratic Party I could go on. But for Obama to overcome this and out fund raise her is simply amazing. It speaks to not only his ability to organize and motivate his supporters. It was his ability to manage the money and plan for the long run past February 5th that has put him in this position. He is still the underdog candidate in my book. Again, I think you make good points. I just don't agree with them. I'm one of those Obama supporters who made a reasoned decision to support him. And this was hard for me - I voted for Bill Clinton, gave Clinton money initially, and supported both of them through the trying late 90s when everyone seemed to be out to get them. So it takes more than just fads and phenomena on blogs to get me to switch. Thanks again for this post.. we need more like it. And.. I'm probably going to post this seperately in another blog now that I saw how long my response was.

Please, hyperventilating lefty blogosphere denizens!  For all that's holy, enough with the Jeremiah Wright hysteria!

Ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, spiritual advisors of all sorts have jobs that involve talking, interpreting spiritual matters for lay audiences, and generally inspiring those audiences to action.  In the process, they are almost certain to say lots of ill-considered, inflammatory things.

As so many have pointed out, spiritual leaders in this country routinely call for excommunicating pro-choice Catholics, condemn the Catholic church as the anti-christ, blame Jews for killing Jesus, and call for the general extermination of all believers in Islam.  Islamic leaders in this and other countries routinely condemn American government policy and the American people.  Unbelievably popular and politically influential televangelists blame American "iniquity" for the attacks on 9/11 and the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.  Jewish clerics call for the opression of Palestinians.   Hindu leaders encourage mobs to destroy Indian Muslim mosques.  Not that I support any of this, but if our civil discourse routinely tolerates and encourages this talk, accepts and ratifies the connection between some politicians and clerics with these views, why on earth can't we cut Barack Obama a little slack with his charismatic, influential and occasionally nutty former pastor?  Are the statements made by Pastor Wright any worse than those of Pastor Falwell, Pastor Robertson, Pastor Hagee?  If they are, why?  Is it because Wright is a BLACK man, and we just can't have BLACK men saying these inflammatory things?  Is stupidity from the mouth of Jeremiah Wright any MORE stupid than stupidity from the mouth of white minister?

In no way do I condone Wright's statement of "G-d damn America," even though I share his outrage at the neglect of poor urban, black communities and the prison industrial complex.  Nor do I agree with Wright's implication that Hillary Clinton (or by extension, other women) can't relate at all to discrimination because they are not black.  That's balderdash, and Obama has rightly said so.

But for all that's holy, think about all the times you (yes, you!) have been in a house of worship, your own, or a family member's or friend's, and heard the officiant or a parishioner say something that made you want to gag and scream, not necessarily in that order?  I hear those things ALL the time, from all houses of worship, regardless of their political inclinations.  I've heard Catholic priests bemoan the drudgery of officiating wedding ceremonies AT wedding ceremonies.  I've heard ministers disparage the devotion of the newly departed at the memorial service.  I've heard rabbis tell women to submit to their husbands.  I've heard pastors say such and so group won't be going to Heaven.  I've overheard fellow pew-sitters complaining about that interracial couple sitting across the aisle or whispering against the gay son attending services with the family that loves him despite his homosexuality.

I don't mention these things to codemn all religious observance, or devout believers, or religion in general, although I vehemently disagree with many particular beliefs and practices.  I merely want to point out that religion, like politics, often brings out the worst in people, just as it more often brings out the best in them.  Speech in and around religious belief and observance can be inherently controversial, no doubt one of the reasons for its strict protection, and separation from government activities, in the Constitution and law of the United States.

So knock it off, already.

What is resoundingly clear though is that after 20 years in the same church, these two men have taken two distinctly different paths. You can't ask for a more stark obvious contrast. That is really the big story. The evolution of thinking in Black America.  
The most profound question is this: what is the evolution of thinking in White America?
And will we choose the path toward one America?

Obama blasts Pat Roberson, Jerry Falwell, Dobson, Sharpton, popular megachurches, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama" and more - in this passionate sermon given in 2006.
Check it out:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938

When the Wright story broke yesterday, most pro-Obama pundits on cable networks immediately started comparing it Ferraro incident.

When the NAFTA story happened during Ohio and Texas, some in news media ran stories of Clinton giving Canadians the same kind of "backdoor" assurances that Obama did.

When Obama admitted that he misled the public about the amount of Rezko contributions, Huffington Post ran it in a story linking this to Norman Hsu trial.

The blogosphere is killing the Obama campaign.

It's no secret that the blogosphere has attained an enormous influence on the mainstream media. The Ferraro story was pushed by DailyKos, Drudge and others, who discovered it in a minor provincial newspaper. They fed it to mainstream media under the "racist" angle. I feel that the Obama campaign has also developed a degree of reliance and trust on the blogosphere in their strategy formulations.

However, my view is that most of the blogosphere backs Obama for reasons that have little to do with the man himself:
- he was initially propped by anti-war liberals
- he was further strengthened by Clinton-haters
- then some of the public bought into the politics of change

The problem is with the second group, which I think is the largest block of Obama supporters. They only care for the Obama win in as much as they care for Clinton's fall.

Therefore, it is their instinctive reaction to make constant parallels to Clinton, from healthcare to NAFTA to foreigh policy to campaign contributions to national security. The list is endless.

In a way, they are right - by insisting on comparing Obama to Clinton they attempt to demostrate how Obama is a better candidate.

The problem is that these endless comparisons are pushed into mainstream media in the form of scandals, finger-pointing and attacks on Clinton. Perhaps there is no other way to counter Clinton charges. But instead of elevating Obama above the frey, they actually drag him down to the level of a typical calculating politician. I haven't heard the mainstream media talk about Obama as transcendent figure in weeks now.

The irony of this is that the nation knows who Clinton is. People know her "baggage". But a large voting coalition seems to be fine with that baggage, state after state.

So, if Obama wins the nomination, his central message of hope and change will be so undermined by the current scandals that the republicans will only have to run the "typical politician" strategy against him to win in November.

Disclaimer: I support Clinton because I think she will be a stronger president. I don't need to have an inspirational leader in the White House - I find role models in more appropriate places. I need someone who can fix the mess and who knows how the goverment (the largest employer in the US) works and how to make it do what you need.

How can a state elect a drunk like this for 40 years after killing his secretary in water no deeper than a swimming pool? He could have found a rock and broken through a window and pulled her out, but no he was too stinking drunk and thinking only of saving his selfish drunken career to think of her as she was upside down in the FLOOR BOARD of the car in a pocket of AIR where she was able to breathe for approximately almost 3 hours in the floorboard of his car before she ran out of air. Teddy Kennedy was driving without a drivers license. And he is a Law Maker and Leader of the Democratic Party? And his state reelected him drunk and all for the next 40 years? Where is your head's? He invented the original WaterBoarding his secretary to death!

He did it to the full extent of the LAW !!
Read the truth about his drunken ways and leaving that poor woman to die in his car. She suffered the worst waterboarding imaginable, by her boss.

YTedK -Ted Kennedy: the truth about Chappaquiddick, and more...Everything you wanted to know about Ted Kennedy (and he was afraid you'd ask). From his father's bootlegging to Chappaquiddick, and more.
www.ytedk.com/ - 54k - Cached - Similar pages
ExhibitsChappaquiddickA Lifetime of ScandalsChapter 2driningrecordSenator KennedyHow the Kennedy Empire was BuiltdrunkMore results from ytedk.com » JFKMoney,Media,and the Mob:How John F Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
www.ytedk.com/jfk.htm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

I am a liberal.  I will call out my own hypocrisy if it rears its ugly head.  I want to believe what I want to believe as much as the next guy.  I had heard about Wright's controbersial sermons but not seen them.  And they were horrible.  Yes, I understand the anger from his generation that actually fought for what Obama's generation now enjoys.  At the beginning of the day yesteray I was angry that Obama had not changed his church the day he announced for President.  How could the campaign not know this was going to happen?  My husband whose roots are in the racist, white SOuth side of Chicago was heartbroken -- he's sure he's done.  He certainy may be right. 

I've listened and read and paid very close attention the last 24 hours.  What I have to say is nusanced and probably not mean anything in the election.  But here's what I see: 

Obama at the core of his being, sees the entire person and not fractions of people to exploit or elevate (his "slice and dice politics" line has more meaning for me now).  He understands Thanksgiving with my racist brother-in-law who I put up with, won't aruge politics with, but would do anything for my husband, his brother.  My brother-in-law is far more than just his politics and if I needed anything, although we don't particularly like each other or understand each other, he would be there for me, too because I love his brother.  We all have variations of this in our lives. 

Read Cass Sunstein's op-ed about Obama in the Chicago Tribune.  It's how Obama views problems, solutions, answers -- he will look at the totality of a task, ask the hard questions, find the best answer regardless of where those answers fall ideologically or politically.  Seriously and genuinely consider the other point of view if it has merit and dismiss it if it's b.s.  He was able to work in the the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate with people who would never work together.  He did it in Illinois when no one else could and actualyl enacted progressive legislation on children's health care and the videotaping of iterrogations.  What syould have been an adversarial issue on videotaping of interrogations -- Obama was able to show law enforcement that he was on their side, looking for the real bads guts, not just a meaningless confession, which ultimately was what they wanted, too.  He showed the "other side" how they would benefit as well.  It was an amazing feat, the sort of effectiveness we so desperately need. 

He did with the Lugar-Obama non-proliferation bill.  He will do it as president I'm sure. 

So Obama looks at Pastor Wright and understands that his anger, as offensive as it is, is part of his personal history.  Without whose struggles there would be no Candidate Obama.  For this he is grateful.  He sees a church that calls for public service and responsibility from its parishioners, that social justice and helping your fellow man is living the message of Jesus.  Who do good deeds every day with compassion that brings them closer to God.  And Obama will not categorically condemn the entire man.  There is more to him than those 30-second clips.  He will not negate the good.  The will not redpudiate the man's entire life. 

Then you being to see the context of Obama being willing to meet world leaders, especially the "bad guys".  Because it's about finding solutions, not just posturing.  It's truly about finding the one, thin thread where our needs intersect, building from that.  No "slicing and dicing" into good/evil, black/white, tough/weak.  I better understand the kind of leader Barack Obama would be than I did 48 hours ago, because he sees more in Pasto Wright than how he serves or hinders Obama's political ambition. 

We hear that Hillary is the Comeback Kid, but Obama nevers gets the same credit for how he wins against insurmountable odds.  No -- he's "lucky" because he's black. 

I'm not stupid.  This will probably sink him.  Pastor Wright will not go away.  Bad judgment, naivete -- he's taken a hit on his core selling points. 

All of this is way too nuanced, I know that.  But Obama has undone damage before.  If anyone can, Obama can.  I'm hoping and praying.  Because I would be proud to call this man my president. 

On the other hand I would be royally furious at Wright if I were Obama for endangering the best chance ever for healing and moving forward.

The only reason this difference in primary voters by race is significant is if whites who vote for HRC won't vote for Obama in the general; blacks who vote for Obama now won't vote for HRC in the general; otherwise we are merely selecting a candidate by preference and the turnout numbers for dems are amazing everywhere.     BTW, what about the collapse of support for HRC among blacks from where she started toward a candidate who has not pandered to them but has sought votes from everyone!  

They were told that if they held the election early in Florida and Michigan, their delegates would not count.

Isn't that supposed to be the end since they said, we are going to do it anyway even though we will lose all of our delegates, it doesn't matter to us?

And now they've changed their minds. Is this what Democrats always do?

In the Republican Party you vote 2 times.
1. One Vote In the Primary
----We have the Republican National Convention where we simply formally announce who won the election during the first and only vote in the Primary.
2. One Vote in the National Election In November=Total two votes for each Republican.

But if you are in a Democratic Caucus State (same state as the Republicans, they just don't have these extra extra special fun rules to play by.)

1. Democrats vote in the Primary.
2. Democrats vote again starting 15 minutes right after the Primary for a second chance vote.
3. The Super Delegates Get Together at the Democratic National Convention and Vote Yet again. It doesn't have to be what the Democrats voted for in the Primary Part One or Primary Part Two all in the same day.
They can choose an entirely different Candidate than the majority of the Democratic Nation picked when they voted. Even though their candidate won, they get them taken away by the Super Delegates, people that are better than you and have more rights than you.
4. Then the Democrats get to vote in the National Election for whoever the Super Delegates picked to be your candidate.

How can this horse and buggy style process still be going on in this day and time? It is ridiculous, not fair and costly to everyone. It is a waste of money and time and makes a mockery of the little individual voters in the Democratic Party. They should have just as equal say as all the other Democrats do

That's the way the Republican Party holds it's elections. We don't have any super people we are all equal. 

When it comes down to it, there are two arguments for not seating delegations in some form from Florida and Michigan. Neither seems to mesh with the idealistic penumbra of the Obama campaign.

The first rationale is based on enforcing clearly stated DNC policy. This "a deal is a deal" mindset values narrow procedural concerns over fairness. There is no fundamental principle at stake in enforcing DNC policy in this instance that comes close to balancing out the harshness of the outcome.

The other, mostly unspoken, rationale is to protect the perception of Obama as a viable candidate. If, as appears likely, he loses in Pennsylvania, losses in Florida and Michigan would be devastating, despite the likelihood of his retaining a small delegate lead. This is the outcome Obama is seeking to avoid at all costs.

That's fine, but perhaps its time for Obama supporters to lower the dudgeon levels.

Schmoozing With Terrorist
Buy Aaron Klein's book
Now at 34% off. $17.13 in hardcover
www.amazon.com/schmoozing

IsraelNationalRadio (INR).'Latest Radio Shows' PodcastsAaron Klein, Jerusalem Bureau Chief for WorldNetDaily.com and author of an eye-opening new book, "Schmoozing with the Terrorists", reveals that key ...
www.podcastdirectory.com/podcasts/19590 - 418k -Cached - Similar pages

Amazon.com: Schmoozing With Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy ... Amazon.com: Schmoozing With Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans to a Jew!: Aaron Klein: Books.
www.amazon.com/Schmoozing-Terrorists-Hollywood-Jihadists-Reveal/dp/0979045126 - 207k - Cached - Similar pages

Amazon.com: Schmoozing With Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy ...
Amazon.com: Schmoozing With Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans to a Jew!: Aaron Klein: Books.
www.amazon.com/Schmoozing-Terrorists-Hollywood-Jihadists-Reveal/dp/0979045126 - 187k - Cached - Similar pages

American Congress for Truth- » Terror leaders describe America ...
Aaron Klein, the intrepid Jerusalem correspondent for WorldNetDaily has written a timely book, “Schmoozing with the Terrorists” on what life would be like ...
blog.americancongressfortruth.com/2007/11/07/terror-leaders-describe-america-bound-by-islam/ - 351k - Cached - Similar pages

FOXNews.com - What Do Terrorists Think About Outspoken Anti-Bush ... Interview: What Do Terrorists Think About Outspoken Anti-Bush Celebrities?, Author: Terrorists like what they hear when stars speak out.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308099,00.html - 47k -Cached - Similar pages



Freedom and Reason: Are Democrats Anti-American?The quotes are apparently drawn from WorldNetDaily.com's Jerusalem Bureau Chief Aaron Klein's book Schmoozing with the Terrorists, which claims to have ...
wwsword.blogspot.com/2007/11/democrats-are-anti-american.html - 60k - Cached - Similar pages

I noticed with no small amount of curiosity that there is currently a "writers strike" going on over at Daily Kos, the aggrieved parties being the diarists who write in support of Sen. Clinton.

Diarist "Alegre" voiced his complaint in an open letter to the progressive blogosphere: "I’ve decided to go on 'strike' and will refrain from posting here as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution."

That's a pretty brazen demand -- he's/she's asking that bloggers face "consequence or <i>retribution</i>" for attacking Sen. Clinton. It's a silly statement and obviously that's not going to happen.

But Alegre's "oh poor me" routine is a fine example of how the Clinton campaign's knack for playing the victim even when they are in mid-attack has trickled down to her supporters. The most recent example being the Ferraro flap, in which the Clinton camp suggested Obama was the one who played the race card against them.

Basically, it's all crap, and these "striking" writers over at Daily Kos have adopted the same tactic. Take, for example, our friend Alegre. He/She went on "strike" yesterday, voicing a loud complaint about the attacks on Sen. Clinton on the blogossphere. On Tuesday, however, he/she had some less than flattering things to write about Sen. Obama:

<blockquote>I heard Obama's wondering why Hillary was offering him the VP spot when he's the front-runner.  My first thought was – well <b>why isn’t he acting like the front-runner then?<b>

He's <b>whining<b> about things like her tax returns (when there are already 20 years worth of disclosures out there), intimating that White Water’s still alive and well in the world of scandals, and making silly mistakes like offering up the 5th explanation of NAFTA-Gate.  This after a week where his top foreign policy advisor called Hillary a monster & told the BBC that his plan to get us out of Iraq was just a best case scenario, and another top advisor (Susan Rice) admitted that he’s not ready to take that 3 am call.

And when Rice was asked about Obama’s foreign policy experience, she pointed to his work on ethics reform.

Hmmm... with all that bad news out there I wonder if it’s time for them to <b>manufacture some more of that outrage he’s oh so good at.</b>  Oh wait – he is!</blockquote>

You see? On Tuesday, Alegre says Obama is a whiner who manufactures outrage. On Friday, Alegre goes on "strike" because others are allowed to "trash Hillary Clinton." Geraldine Ferraro says that Obama's race is the sole reason behind his success, and the Clinton campaign faults Obama for playing the race card.

It's silly and nonsensical, and if Alegre wants to take a vacation from the blogosphere that is so mean to his/her candidate, I say "bon voyage."

When all else fails extortion seems to be the coin of the realm for big money Clinton supporters. Time and time again the biggest headache for the Democrats has been the Florida Democratic leadership and its unwillingness to stick to agreements and play by the rules. This morning the NY Times is reporting:

… influential fund-raisers for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have stepped up their behind-the-scenes pressure on national party leaders to resolve the matter, with some even threatening to withhold their donations to the Democratic National Committee unless it seats the delegates from the two states or holds new primaries there.

Apparently the Florida Demcoratic leadership and their money masters want to continue the charade of representing the voters of Florida. Please! I was born in the day; it just wasn’t yesterday. The full story of how the Florida delegates were stripped must be told to a much wider audience. It is time to stop the meme that Florida Democrats were the victims of those mean Republicans. They were not. While Florida Republicans were inside sticking up the bank, Florida Democrats were nervously chain-smoking out in the get away car hoping not to get caught. But Clinton’s Big Money supporters want their money back if their vote doesn’t count? Maybe they should talk to Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman, or maybe they already have? She seems to be part of the big money corporatist problem in Florida.

Jon Ausman, a Florida representative to the Democratic National Committee released an email last August 2007, here’s the money quote:

1.Florida Democratic Legislators sponsored the bill to move the primary to January 29th;
2.Florida House Democratic Legislators voted in committee three times for the bill to move the primary to January 29;
3.All but one Florida House Democratic Legislator vote on the floor to move the primary to January 29; and,
4.Florida House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber stated, after receiving a call from DNC Chair asking for help in opposing setting the primary date before February 5, “I don´t
represent Howard Dean.”
5.Florida House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber stated, after offering an amendment to move the primary to February 5th, that the only reason he offer it was “to show that there was an attempt to state within the Democratic Party rules.” The amendment
failed on a voice vote with no debate being offered.
6.Florida Senate Democratic Legislators voted in committee to move the primary to January;
7.Florida Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller stated on the Senate floor that he was offering an amendment to move the primary to February 5 only because he was threatened by DNC Chair Howard Dean. Sen. Geller than mocked his own amendment which failed on a voice vote without any debate.

By this account it doesn’t appear that Florida Democrats were victimized by anyone.  Florida Democrats are now in the bank threatening a stickup of their own.

This week we witness the re-emergence of the tempest that was the 1960's in the angry rhetoric of both Rev. Wright and Geraldine Ferraro They both once manned the battlements and their warrior souls cannot completely let go of their need to fight on.  What they cannot see before their eyes is the new generation that has emerged in the person of Barack Obama.

 

 Obama does not need to continue Wright’s fight for recognition; he has fulfilled Martin Luther Kings dream of the color of his skin not mattering because to a great many Americans the content of Obama’s character does.  His actions and attempt to keep the issue of race out of this primary are ones MLK would honor.  Just as we needed the fiery words of a Samuel Adams to rouse passion in our fight for independence we then needed the abilities of John Adams to forge the new country. Wright’s generation was like Samuel’s call to arms, Obama’s generation is the one now fulfilling their vision.

 

This week Geraldine Ferraro remained unrepentant about her remarks that in essences implied Obama merely to be an affirmative action hire. She is wearing blinders. She sees herself as handing off the baton to Hillary of in a race she started thirty years ago. So fixated is she on winning this nomination for Women she cannot accept that another individual might just be the better candidate this time so she disparages his qualification. Her anger in interviews was palatable and understandable but misdirected.

 

In the 60’s both blacks and women were fighting for recognition, to be able to wall in the front door, to break the glass ceilings. Hillary Clinton is still fighting that battle as well.  She too sees this nomination as the culmination of all her work and effort and cannot conceive it is time for a new generation to take her place but a new generation has arisen. My daughters have never doubted they could have their own careers and see no limits on how far they can go forward. They see women at the top of every field today.  They have no anger just an expectation of success that women in the 60’s were required to fight for and to win.

 

Barack Obama is part of the generation now standing on those battlements of long ago. He sees a new America so many fought and even died for along the way. He is presenting a vision of what can be if we move beyond the divisions wrought in the 1960’s when America was almost torn apart. He acknowledges the warrior in Rev, Wright but he knows there is goodness at the heart of this battle-scarred man so has denounced his fiery rhetoric of old but not the Christian within.  So too does Obama acknowledges the success of Hillary Clinton and excuses the vehemence of Ferraro, but see himself as more able to inspire and move America forward. Yes, Hillary is a fighter but we need a consensus builder and a visionary

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, I know this notion is way out in left field. But I figure, I'm new and I haven't had my coffee yet, so what the heck. Here's my thinking -

The Universe (God, whatever) wants Obama to win.

I know! Insane! But this is what led me here...

Ohio voted for Hillary - that night they were hit by a massive snowstorm that shut down parts of the state and killed about 5 people.
Tennessee voted for Hillary and that night were hit by
a huge tornado complex that killed a dozen people.
New York voted for Hillary and now they're down a governor.

And now...CNN (and their news brethren) give Obama a hard time about Rev. Wright and hours later their building is targeted by a tornado...in DOWNTOWN ATLANTA.

Freaky stuff.

There are more examples...like New Jersey voted for Hillary and they're still New Jersey.

Ask Texas - they knew what would happen, so they pulled out a caucus to save themselves. If they hadn't done that it would have been rampaging wildfires for days.

So either Obama is being backed by the Universe (in a Soprano-esque sort of way), or Obama IS the Universe and chooses not to use his powers to actually influence the events that involve him.

Think about it.


(And before anyone starts posting mean stuff...it's a joke. Except the part about CNN. I think someone did that on purpose. FOX and MSNBC should take note. I'm getting my coffee now).

Obama’s Fairy Tale on opposing the war in Iraq

Alegre, a pro-Hillary blogger on Daily Kos has announced s/he will go on strike, and is rallying other Hillaristas to join him.

I’ve decided to go on “strike” and will refrain from posting here as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution.  I will not be posting at DailyKos effective immediately.  I will not help drive up traffic or page-hits as long as my candidate – a good and fine DEMOCRAT - is attacked in such a horrid and sexist manner not only by other diarists, but by several of those posting to the front page.

I am not going to defend the mobs of crazed Obama supporters that drove this blogger to quit and move to a different neighborhood at all.  In fact, I’ll reject and denounce them, as is in vogue this political season.

However, I do have one comment.  Hillary supporters act so shocked at the backlash their candidate has received, especially in the Blog-o-sphere.   Some, including Alegre, accuse the backlashers as being sexist.

Well, I think it’s a fine trick to try to put the spotlight on the angry Obama supporters who are expressing their outrage rather immaturely (if you need proof, see some of my posts!)

But the reality is, this reaction is a “REACTION” meaning it didn’t just appear out of thin air.  This sort of attack wasn’t happening before Hillary’s campaign went negative. And trying to spin it as sexism is absurd.

In the political marketplace, Hillary and her campaign decided to get ugly and go negative.  That was a calculated risk that paid off in the short term with wins in Ohio and Texas, which kept her campaign alive for another few months.  However, people are not going to gloss over “how” she won.  And there was some serious long-term consequences for her going negative, not all of which have even totally played out yet.  For example, we’ll have to see what happens at the convention and the in the general election to truly evaluate the long-term effects of her campaign’s decision.

Personally, I would not blame her at all for going forward and staying in the race, if she had won by selling her campaign.  But that’s not how she did it.  And if she and her supporters are feeling the squeeze and the pressure resulting from her campaign’s decisions, well, I’m not that sympathetic.  If your candidate changes course either policy-wise, or tactics-wise, then you have a choice to continue your support or not.  If Obama were to change course in a way that I didn’t like, I would no longer support him.  Just as I am shocked at Republicans who continued to support Bush, despite the fact that his presidency turned out to be so completely different from how he ran in 2000.

But if Hillary supporters continue to support her campaign, then I assume they tacitly support what she and her campaign says and does.  And if they get flack from other democrats, well, what did they expect?

First lets be honest.  There is a lot more racism left in this country then anyone wants to believe.  A lot of hate on both sides of the isle.   I am sure most black men, women, and children can understand why reverend Wright is so angry with America.  Why many of the things he says are true.

The truth is Obama has spent 20 years with this pastor.  I am sure not every sermon was like this, but I am sure he has heard these sermons.  

Here is what I respect about the man. 


Through all this time Obama hasn't let himself become like reverend Wright.  It would have been easy for him to become hateful of this country, of white people.  Hate is easy.   Instead Obama reached for hope. 

I think Obama was very inspired by reverend Wright.  I think his actions paint the picture of someone who saw this man, and others who so identified with him and wanted to help.  The reverends wounds from a past filled with hatred (from white people towards his people) were so deep that they made him hate the country that caused them.

I could be wrong, but I think Obamas actions, words, and demeanor suggest that he went into politics in an effort to help this country move in a direction where no man, woman, or child would ever have to feel the way this man does.

Regardless of skin color.

His message of unity seems to be directly inspired by this man. 

I believe there are two kinds of hate.  There is the hate bred by ignorance, and there is hate bred by pain and suffering.

reverend Wright is not in need of our disgust or anger, he is in need of healing. 

I truly believe that is what Obama is trying to do.  He is trying to take steps towards this healing for reverend Wright and every American who has ever been made to feel like he has. 

Listen to the cheers during the reverends sermon.  Me?  I here a lot of pain and suffering being given an outlet.

Obama gives a different outlet.  Hope.

The Senate subcommittee on Interstate Commerce had a hearing yesterday concerning the value of using the GDP as a measure of the nation's well-being.  Needless to say, along with the stock market and unemployment figures, the GDP is one of the most commonly cited numbers in articles dealing with the state of the economy.  Kate Sheppard over at Tapped takes a look at the issue.  She quotes Robert F. Kennedy who once noted the failures of GDP measurement:

"Our gross national product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage," said Kennedy. "It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl."

The problem with GDP, argued Kennedy, which remains true today, is that it includes a lot of things that destroy the environment, health, and peace of the world as positive but doesn't look at other valuable measures: "It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country."

It's a good point.  Sadly, considering only one Senator, chairman Byron Dorgan, bothered to even show up for the hearing, I don't expect the conventional wisdom on GDP will be changing anytime soon in the United States.

There's also a great piece buried in Google's cache here, rejecting GDP as an adequate indicator in and of itself.  That piece of writing comes from the "post-autistic economics" movement.  This is one of the heterodox schools of economic thought, which, though difficult to define, can basically be summarized as a rejection of the neoclassical economic schools of thought which rose during the second half of the 20th century.  The post-autistic school launches the general criticism that economics relies too heavily on mathematical modeling to the point of drowning itself in abstraction unrelated to everyday experience, and gives humans too much credit for acting in rational manners.  It was begun by young students in France who were hostile to reigning economic opinion:

A group of economics students, their worst fears confirmed, approached Guerrien eager to “do something.” A week later, 15 of them gathered in a classroom to hash out a plan of attack. Someone called the reigning neoclassical dogma “autistic!” The analogy would stick: like sufferers of autism, the field of economics was intelligent but obsessive, narrowly focussed, and cut off from the outside world.

Paul Krugman for whom I have great respect has written a counter argument to those beliefs, which can be found here.  That said, I've taken a number of economics courses in my academic career, and what always always amazes me is the glibness with which those of the Chicago School of thought (popularized by Milton Friedman and currently the predominant economic philosophy today) are willing to dismiss any concerns which aren't quantifiable.  Not to mention the failure to account for information asymmetries and irrational human behavior.  Quite literally, neoclassical economics discounts anything which is not quantifiable, and in most cases does a poor job in quantifying anything which is not at some point sold to a consumer. 

Last semester, I took environmental economics.  In their attempt to place value on national parks, the professor combined the opportunity cost (that which is forfeited by making a certain decision) and the out of pocket cost to determine how much people valued a national park.  However, he failed to carry out these estimates into the future.  Thusly, the park was undervalued because no one placed a value on what people 20 or 50 or 100 years from now would place on the unspoiled wilderness.  And as wilderness becomes a rarer commodity, its value among the average citizen is bound to increase.  In another instance, when the question of spite was brought up -- that is, one party forfeits their own self-interest in order to deny another person financial gain -- the professor noted that since it was quantifiable, it wasn't considered by economists.  I don't know about you, but I know spite drives all sorts of people to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Luckily, for all of modern economics shortcomings with the GDP, the U.N. has adopted a new model, the Human Development Index, which takes life expectancy, literacy and purchasing power into account in addition to GDP.  In other words, does what economists should be doing, calculating the social and environmental welfare, not just the social output.  And while I wouldn't mind seeing income inequality added to that list as well, it's still a great improvement over our current system. 

For further reading, I highly recommend looking into behavioral economics, which I believe to be a far better theory of how humans behave in the market place.  Neoclassical economics holds man to be a rational actor.  The problems with this assumption, which undergurds the rest of their philosophy, are many:

1.  Humans are not rational actors.  They frequently choose instinct and emotion over careful consideration.

2.  There are currently few relationships in which both parties are privelaged to the same information.  Thus, he who is best informed holds an outstanding advantage of he who is ignorant of key issues.  This applies to real estate, medical treatments, mechanical work and much else.

3.  Most times, neoclassical economists create their mathematical model first, and then fail to predict future conditions made upon their model.  That is to say, economics as we know it today rejects the scientific method.

4.  There is simply no way for man to be a rational actor without the appropriate information available to them.  Therefore, as the sheer volume of information increases, the worse "rational man's" choice will be because he cannot begin to understand the entirety of the system in which he is making his decision.

5.  Finally, as noted above, neoclassical economics will associate positive qualities to events which no one would argue are positive (natural disasters, medical emergencies, etc.), but which do contribute to consumer spending.

So, let's do ourselves all a favor and stop looking to the GDP to tell us whether we're better or worse off.  For all we know, it could be telling us that more of us are becoming sick and are receiving medical treatment, or going to war and getting injured for that matter.

P.S. For more commentary, please visit my personal blog over at The Left Anchor.  Thanks!

All of these are quotes from the Chicago Tribune Story:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obama-rezkomar15,0,2968927.story

His first big contributor

Asked if he ever thought Rezko would expect something from their relationship, Obama was emphatic: "No.

 

Obama said voters should view his Rezko dealings as "a mistake in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest." But he added that voters should also "see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing . . . and who they can trust."

 

Obama said he asked his friend about them. Rezko assured him there was nothing wrong. "My instinct was to believe him," he said.

 

 

 

My Comments:

Either he is sincerely naïve and inexperienced and therefore not qualified to be a good chief executive OR he is just another politician caught trying to triangulate his way out of a mess. Get real. All those years and all that money and he never wanted any thing from you? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaase!

Let’s play “NAME THE FANATIC”

African-Americans are the single most loyal block of Democratic voters. They're absolutely solid voting record is the reason why Bill Clinton won handily and why Gore got the popular vote. Democrats can't win without African-American support. Let me say that one more time for the people in the cheap seats. DEMOCRATS CAN'T WIN WITHOUT AFRICAN-AMERICAN SUPPORT. But what did you do when a black preacher who was preaching to a predominately black congregation about oppression and imperialism? You threw him under the bus. By extension you through ALL of us African-Americans under the bus. Oh you might have been uncomfortable with his fiery rhetoric and might have even disagreed with him but as Democrats you had a fucking duty to listen and a duty to try to understand where he was coming from. Hell, after all of the support Democrats have gotten from us it's the least you could do. But you didn't. You called him racist. By extension you called all of us racist as well because we believe that American Imperialism is bad, we believe that American racism is bad. You see, it's true, we think White America is responsible for many ills that plague not only America but the world. It certainly ain't the fault of black America. Or Latinos. Or Asians. Or Native Americans. See none of us ever got the chance to lead. That shit is on the head of White America. Progressives used to think so to. Until it came from the mouth of a black man. Progressives used to think that American Imperialism brought us 9/11. Until it came from the mouth of a black man. Progressives used to think blacks were terribly oppressed. Until it came out of the mouth of a black man. Progressives used to think that America was responsible for all sort of terrible things around the world and that it was failing to live up to its promise as a nation that could do great things. Until it came out of the mouth of a black man. Do you understand what you have done? All around the country black folks are going to look at how John McCain was treated when his psychotic religious allies were mentioned for a brief moment, he said he didn't agree with everything they said, and then it went away. All around the country black folks are going to look at how Barack Obama was treated when his pastor, who has railed against injustice near and far before some of you were even born, was paraded across the TV screens and Barack Obama was forced to denounce him or suffer the consequences. Oh don't get me wrong, we expected something like that. America ain't all that different just yet. But what we didn't expect (at least some of the less jaded of us) was that Democrats wouldn't defend him. We expected Democrats to be consistent and say, like they did after 9/11, "HELL YEAH AMERICA NEEDS TO QUIT FUCKING AROUND IN OTHER COUNTRIES! SEE WHAT IT GETS US!?!?" or "HELL YEAH AMERICA NEEDS TO STOP BEING RACIST AND OPPRESSIVE". But you didn't. None of you. Not on the blogs. Not on TV. No one. Now the whispering will start. On the streets, in the churches, in the neighborhoods. Oh they're going to steal it from him for sure. Oh did you see how they treated him and his pastor? That was unfair. Oh I see there are still double standards. Mmm hmm, I told you so. Oh they don't think America is all that bad now huh? You know what effect that's going to have? Democrats will lose a substantial portion of the black vote if anyone but Obama is nominated. Now you already lost the militantish black vote for all that defense of the drug-dealing, shucking and jiving shit, but the regular folks are still loyal Democrats to the core. But not now. Not after you not only don't defend, but actively trash, a black preacher. No sir. You've gone and done it now. Good job "progressives"!

Olbermann's denunciation of Hillary was our one chance to lift one side of this race for the nomination, out of the sewer.
For about 48 hours, it worked.  Then came Fox News with a video of Obama's pastor in a rant.  A rant of a long time ago.  Now we are back in the sewer.  Like a beast out of the sea, filled with hate and insisting on having its' own way---how dare Olbermann stop the rot---, Fox News goes into saturation mode, lest anyone in the land, man, woman, child, the dog and cat, miss, it has to be said, this somewhat infammatory-in-parts video of Pastor J. Wright.
Right. 
Thanks, Fox.

Pardon the scrambled HTML. This is my first post and I only see now that there's no preview function or a way to edit after posting.

Pardon me.

Cross-posted at AlchemyToday because blogging here is difficult...

Don't know why I put myself through this, but I just counted several instances where Taylor Marsh accuses Barack Obama of playing the “hoodwink” card in South Carolina and Mississippi–presumably some sort of political crime because he’s been caught speaking in coded language to his black supporters. Now, I saw Obama throw this line out, which has been a standard part of his stump speech for months, in Baltimore in front of an audience that was probably half-or-so white, but Baltimore’s a majority black city and Obama was trying to get out the vote for his largely black supporters in Downtown and West Baltimore, so I decided to see if there’s any veracity to T. Marsh’s claims (from what I gather, there generally isn’t, but let’s give her a fair shake).

Turns out, Obama’s used that exact language in practically every state he’s campaigned in since South Carolina.

Alabama

However, he rebutted efforts to besmirch his character in Birmingham, a cradle of the civil rights movement, where he addressed a cheering, racially mixed crowd of 10,000.

“That’s just the same dirty tricks. That’s old-style politics, trying to bamboozle you, trying to hoodwink you, running the okie-doke on you.”

“This election … it’s not a black or white issue, it’s not a young or old issue it’s a past issue versus a future issue,” Obama said in an impassioned speech at the University of Alabama. “… This is our moment. This is our time.

California

On stage in front of a “change” banner at a fund-raiser at the Avalon club in Hollywood, Barack Obama reprised his his ‘bamboozled” line last night for an audience that included celebrities. (Quentin Tarantino!). “It’s the typical response against a movement for change,” he said. “[It] happens, by the way, every time. It’s fascinating, you know, Bill Clinton was confronted with the same stuff back in the 90s. And now, you know, things go full circle.”

Missouri

Browsing the language news online recently, I found a lively debate under way at the MSNBC politics blog. The item sparking the discussion was a note on Barack Obama’s colloquial language; he was already telling voters not to be bamboozled or hoodwinked by his opponents, not to fall for the okey-doke. And in St. Louis, the MSNBC reporter said (mistakenly, it now appears), he added hornswoggled to the list.

Different context; don’t know where

Obama wants multi-year prison sentences for bankers and others who “hoodwink” poor people into homes beyond their means, and as with some in Congress, he wants bankruptcy judges to be able to change the terms of mortgage contracts.

Osh Kosh, WI

“They will try to bamboozle you, hoodwink you, run the okey-doke on you,” Obama likes to warn of his foes.

Boston, MA

I am not going to cower and quake because the big, bad Republican machine is coming. Because they practiced that old politics. Yes, we have had it with ???. We know the games, the tricks, the bamboozle.

 

Not only that, but look at this:

Camp Clinton shot back Tuesday that Obama was trying to hoodwink people into thinking Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y., doesn’t want to start pulling out. “Sen. Obama is mistaken,” said Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson, who fired off an e-mail listing Clinton’s repeated calls for a “phased redeployment.”

And in South Carolina, Obama wasn’t saying anything about Clinton, just responding, in jest, to the absurd e-mails that were going around at the time. Although he did not accuse the Clinton campaign directly of smearing him on race and religion, Mr. Obama referred to emails that brand him a Muslim fifth columnist as part of a broad attempt to “hoodwink you”.

In the end, the only conclusion I can see as a dedicated Obamabot is that Taylor Marsh is the one who can’t see anything but race in this. Of course, the history of this is absurd as well:

Is hoodwink related to the KKK? one suspicious commenter ventured. No, or do I mean “duh”? Hoodwink is first recorded in 1562, some 300 years before the debut of the Klan. It meant, at first, “to blindfold” - “We’ll have no Cupid hoodwink’d with a scarf,” says Benvolio in “Romeo and Juliet” - and later “to fool, deceive.”

As for bamboozle, it was the trendiest new slang in London back when Jonathan Swift denounced it, in the Tatler, in 1710. It may or may not have been a favorite with the real Malcolm X, but Disraeli used it, and Walter Lippmann, and Frank Zappa. Not to mention Chris Matthews, who last year asked, “How can the president continue to bamboozle the public?”

A couple of blog commenters insisted that the combination of hoodwink and bamboozle was the giveaway; where else but in the “Malcolm X” speech would you find those “rare” words together?

Well, in Lord Greville’s memoir: “Palmerston never intended anything but to hoodwink his colleagues, bamboozle the French, and gain time” (1885). And in H.L. Mencken: “He does not merely tell how politicians hoodwink, bamboozle and prey upon the boobs; he shows precisely how” (1928). And even in “Some Facts about Treating Railroad Ties” (1912): “‘Quick high vacuum’…and other imaginary words, intended to mystify, hoodwink and bamboozle the uninitiated.”

Does this mean Obama’s not recalling, genuinely/cynically/naively, some of the language of Black America? Of course not. Is it still absurd that Taylor Marsh is bemoaning the media for not paying attention to Obama playing the “hoodwink” card…

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in Your sight oh Lord my God and my Redeemer.  I attend church on a regular basis, but notice that I didn't ask for the acceptance of my preacher or any preacher anywhere.  The preacher may be the spiritual leader of my church congregation, but Christ is the Head of the Christian Church.  Living the life of a Christian is an individual choice.  I think the words of a popular Christian song says it best, "though no one go with me, I still will follow".

As I was watching Anderson Cooper on CNN tonight, I was struck by a comment that guest Tony Perkins made when he said that "[he didn't see how Barack Obama could attend church sermons preached by Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright and not be adversely influenced by them]".  Well Tony, the answer is "easily."  God gives each of us a discerning spirit and a Bible to research and verify that what the preacher says is actually the Word of God.  Everything the preacher says is not taken at face value.  And Tony as a professed Christian, I'm sure that you are familiar with the Biblical command to "study to show yourself approved."

If you want to know if Obama is influenced more by Rev. Wright or Jesus Christ, you ask him.  Then you take him at his word.  The real question or measure of a person's sincerity is who does the person emulate. In the case of Obama, does his actions more closely reflect the sound bite YouTube sermon of Rev. Wright whom church he has attended for twenty years or do they more closely emulate the teachings of Christ. 

Christ is a unifier.  He accepts people equally regardless of their earthly status.  Isn't that what Obama has sought to do when he called upon Democrats, Republicans, Black people, White people, Latino people, young people and old people, men and women, to work together for the betterment of America.  No other candidate has captured the imagination of the country and inspired the nation more by their message of hope and call for change than Barack Obama.

But why do some people work so hard to keep the status quo.  An old wise person once said that some people just like to wallow in mess.  Why?  Well one obvious reason is that positive change can dry up their gravy train.  What would Rush Limbaugh do if his audience suddenly stopped listening to his nonsense?  Even when in our hearts we know that this country could use a makeover, we still resist.  Another reason for our hesitation could be that we know that the journey will be so difficult and the path of least resistance looks more inviting. 

However, the question remains.  As we have observed Barack Obama over these many months, has he exhibited behavior more like Rev. Wright (as seen in the YouTube video) or behavior more closely resembling the teachings of Christ?  I think the answer is clear.  Barack Obama has revealed himself as someone that Americans could be proud to call their President and I hope he gets a little Heavenly intervention.

<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_FSxWO_CG3oo/R9tF44BRqpI/AAAAAAAAAPM/l7WdvUy7qx0/s400/great+Despression-the+American+Way.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5177809040005245586" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">Actual photo from the last Great Depression
Photo (c)1937 by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Bourke-White">Margaret Bourke-White</a></span>

</div>All signs are that the United States is headed straight into an economic meltdown and a second Great Depression, and inquiring minds everywhere are asking when this coming economic crash will hit and what it will be like.

As to the first question, the gold standard of economic gurus <a href="http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/%7Enroubini/">- Nouriel Roubini</a> - has predicted the Third Wave (a surfer term meaning "the Big One") for August-September of this year (<a href="http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/248801">Source). </a>As for the second question, we do in fact have a good model for the coming living conditions in the history of the last Great Depression, which lasted from 1929 until 1940, and  were eleven years of pure hell. See the Great Depression timeline at: <a href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm">Timeline</a>.

The average unemployment rate during the whole period of the Great Depression was roughly 17% nationally, rising to 30+% in selected areas - the South, Appalachia, and the Midwest. Depending on where one lived, that was one person in five to one-in-three  unemployed and unemployable. At the beginning of WWII, the rate was still 17%. The Great Depression was a world-wide event; with the possible exception of sub-Saharan Africa, no nation on earth was exempt. During those years, some 80% of the population dropped off the tax rolls! (Ibid)

The naked numbers are misleading, though, because in America the Midwest was also in the midst of a 100-year drought which combined with high winds and poor cultivation techniques led to the desertification of hundreds of thousands of acres of the Midwest (creating the "black blizzards" of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl">Dust Bowl</a>) and drove millions of farmers off their land, resulting in the great Okie migration to California. 50% of family farms failed during this time.

California then became the breadbasket for America, but at near-starvation wages for the laborers. My father (then a teenager) made $5 a day picking potatoes and other crops, which is backbreaking labor, and not for the old or infirm. That source of labor income is mostly gone now because of highly mechanized harvesting techniques, although stoop labor is still required for vegetables such as lettuce, berries, potatoes, etc. (The West coast is the source of beets, potatoes, apples, berries, leaf vegetables, carrots, strawberries, oranges, peas, etc from the Imperial Valley in Southern California up to the apple trees in Washington State and the potato fields of Idaho). Wheat and corn are Midwestern crops and almost entirely mechanized, but heavily dependent on fuel prices, so expect shortages of bread and maybe ration cards. Danger point: about half of today's American shopping cart is filled with products from overseas. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-07-10-buying-american_N.htm">Source</a>.

Presently, harvesting in the West is principally done by Mexican <a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0833129.html">migrant labor</a>, with a smattering of low-rent whites, so one of the effects of the depression will be the instant roundup, incarceration and/or deportation of the present immigrant population in California and the Southwest, expanding to a national effort (that's what the "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/r5x5r">concentration camps</a>" were built for;  the roundup plans are already on the books). This will be a massive undertaking, so look for job opportunities in "law enforcement."  Anyone caught in public speaking Spanish will probably be shot, beaten or hung on the spot by vigilante groups.

The coming depression may not be quite as severe as the last one, but it will still be bad. Most Americans will still have a job, but at reduced wages and benefits; they will pay more (sometimes a lot more) for critical items like food and gas, including heating and cooking fuels. Electricity prices will fluctuate wildly depending on what is generating your electric (hydro, gas or coal). The South will become almost unlivable as the air conditioners are turned off one by one. Most airlines will go the way of the dodo, and take Boeing and McDonald Douglas with them. This is not good, as Boeing is the largest exporter of American manufactured goods in the country.

Psychologically, almost everyone will suffer severe depression caused by job anxiety and constant worry brought on by the loss of cultural stability (<a href="http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/job-loss-depression-faq.htm">Source</a>). The mainstream media will be full of happy news that no one will believe. Well, the remaining sane people, anyway. As a happy side note, the Great Depression led directly to the explosion of the movie-making industry, as millions flocked to cheap movie houses ("Air Conditioned Inside!") as people sought escape from the reality-hell they were living in with the fantasy world of big screen Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers fantasy land. In the new depression, Hollywood will continued to provide fantasy escape entertainment, but "reality TV" will be a non-starter.

There will be inner-city riots that will not and cannot be put down, with acres and acres of burned business districts. The six o'clock news will cover these extensively, but in no particular depth, per usual. (History as such does not exist to the people who bring you the "news").

Local banks failed at a rate of about 600 per year during the Depression; expect the same this time, so, local bankers will be chased down and subjected to kangaroo trials by angry citizens, then hung or exiled. Large roving gangs of unemployed youth (black, white, brown and yellow) will cause untold mayhem. There will be curfews everywhere.

During the Great Depression the Constitution was still in effect and presidential and congressional elections were still held as scheduled. However, Bush will still be in office when the Crash hits, and since the Constitution has been nullified in its entirety under his regime, there is the strong possibility that he will declare war on Iran, suspend the November elections, declare martial law, and resume the draft. In that case - and barring a military coup - expect riots everywhere (<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Establishing_martial_law_in_the_United_States">Source</a>).

Short of that, there will be actual martial law in selected places, although functioning military authority will be limited to large population centers - the rural countryside will be mainly pest-free - as our military is mostly overseas and will take ages to bring back en mass. Don't expect to see many tanks in the street in any case: they're all in Germany or Kuwait (<a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/1ad.htm">Source</a>).

On the personal level, if you're Joe Sixpack, you have zero savings (in fact, the <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/02/news/economy/savings/index.htm">average American savings rate is zero</a>), so to pay your rent you will attempt to sell your plasma TV, your DVD players, your PlayStation, and your gun collection piecemeal (but keep the shot gun and the .45) and try to trade the XLT monster truck for a Jap import, and good luck on that. The waiting lines for bankruptcy court will be around the block, and you will probably have to pimp your daughters to pay the lawyer's fees anyway.

Hospitals will close, but individual doctors may treat your cancer in exchange for freshly-killed  poultry.  Expect an uptick in sales of The Idiot's Guide to Self-Dentistry.

The majority of the unemployed will spend their days in line at the state welfare office. Unemployment insurance is a state function, and, as most states are near broke right now, they will run out of money very fast. The more enterprising among us will then go out and stand on the sidewalk and sell pencils, if they can afford to buy any. Technically, a city or state cannot go "bankrupt" under present US law, but they can and do run out of cash. Then they "reorganize" (Source: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3d3w2q">ncwb.uscourts.gov</a>). Still, when you're broke, you're broke. Then it's boiled shoe leather time, although I know personally and for a fact that there are people right now eating road kill.

Optimistic estimates are that this period of "economic instability" will be <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1122294.stm">short-lived</a>, but that's probably the result of the same wildly optimistic dreamland pseudo-thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. Realistically, I would guess that you can expect the same ten to eleven years of chaos and social disruption as the first Great Depression, which we really only got out of when we entered World War II. Think about that one, real hard.

The good news is that <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/when-change-not-enough-seven-steps-revolution">all the conditions are in place</a> for a socialist revolution. You can expect heavily-armed resistance.

Life will not be easy after the crash, and you probably won't die as a direct result of it, but you will definitely be living a vastly reduced lifestyle in economic, cultural and political terms. And if you think I'm kidding, you're an idiot and deserve everything you get. I sure as hell didn't make you hock your house or max out your credit line to buy a fucking $3,000 plasma digital High Definition TV set to watch "American Idol." You did.

Good night and good luck.<br />




 

I have been wondering when the greater United Church of Christ was going to weigh in on this. Obama has much to lose, but the denomination does not want to see its own reputation or membership damaged in the process.

They have written a feature article on their website in which they describe Trinity UCC as a "great gift to wider church family" and heap massive praise on the church. They praise Wright as well. Remember this is a predominantly white denomination. I would be interested to see some UCC representatives address the MSM and defend their support.

An excerpt:
<blockquote>
In the wake of misleading attacks on its mission and ministry, Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ is being lauded by United Church of Christ leaders across the nation for the integrity of its worship, the breadth of its community involvement and the depth of its commitment to social justice.

"Trinity United Church of Christ is a great gift to our wider church family and to its own community in Chicago," says UCC General Minister and President John H. Thomas. "At a time when it is being subjected to caricature and attack in the media, it is critical that all of us express our gratitude and support to this remarkable congregation, to Jeremiah A. Wright for his leadership over 36 years, and to Pastor Otis Moss III, as he assumes leadership at Trinity."

Thomas says he has been saddened by news reports that "present such a caricature of a congregation that been such a great blessing."

</blockquote>

Interesting.

(I hope the formatting works on this post this time.)

Senator Obama's campaign just released a video of the candidate on Youtube opposing the comments made by Reverend Wright, his former poster. The link to the video is below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7piGy0u43c

Feel free to share this so that it goes viral! Send it out in e-mails, blog postings, and on Facebook, and on digg! as well.

I have to say I've been impressed with how the campaign has reacted to this, first with the HuffingtonPost blog posting, the quickfire media appearances, and now the YouTube video. I don't think McCain did this about Vickie Iseman.

Let’s play “NAME THE FANATIC”

I am reminded of Mark Twain's referral to society in Hannibal, MO as sivilization, not civilization, to underscore its hipocrisy and utter silliness and mean-spiritness.  Yes, Reverend Wright was more than intemperate, but gimme a break, a lot of what he said has more than a grain of truth in it: racism in the form of slavery was crucial to the success of this country; we have supported what certainly resembles state terrorism against Palestinians; for years and years we supported the Apartheid government in South Africa.  And lord knows our government thinks it is "holier than thou."  I am absolutely amazed that the likes of John McCain and Rush Limbaugh can with seemingly straight faces attack Wright.  As has been pointed out a number of times, the views of Hagee and his ilk are a whole lot more extreme. And scary. And violent in their speech. And intolerant, to put it mildly.And what have they done for the people?  Those people are whom John McCain accepts as Official Endorsers.

You know, at the end of his career, Wright, yes may be intemperate, but he is also justifiably angry as he looks around at the schools in poor neighborhoods, at the lack of jobs for people in inner cities, at the number of black men in prisons. At the lackof affordable health care. And at the failure of our current government to even glance at the suffering. After all, as George W. pointed out, they can use emergency rooms.

Idly complaining since I do not feel like e-mailing. One hint first--I notice a few people complaining it taking a long while for posts to appear which is not entirely accurate. There IS a two-or-so minute turnaround serverside at worst (for me anyway) but at that point you are also hitting any number of caches and proxies. I am not sure whether IE offers a similar option but Firefox (which I heartily recommend for everyone) uses Shift-Ctrl-R for "force reload" which should ignore any cached content. Unless connecting through a heavily caching (usually internal) network, you should be able to get through by hitting Ctrl-R a couple times too. The browser settings also usually allow clearing expirys and caches. So anyway.

Oh, second tip but you probably already knew--always always copy your post to clipboard before hitting submit. IE is particularly bad about losing your message if something fails otherwise.

1. Looks like TPM/E and TPM/C set their cookies to expire with session (this means when you close *all* instances of your browser) but the servers are expiring these for some reason, I estimate around 10 minutes. Expiry is based on posting, also, not on activity so just reading stuff and going through links will not increase the lifetime.

2. The re-login at the comment field does not work. I originally registered at TPM/C side but regardless of where the re-login appears, it always fails.

3. The 'welcome' bar is inconsistent. Quite a few times it still shows me logged in even though I get the re-login box trying to post.

4. Logging in on TPM main site works about 1/3 the time. I am at the point that wherever I need to (re-) log in, I first click on TPM/E at the very top, wait for the page to load and then RE-load the page, after which I can click Logout. Logging in at the screen Logout takes me works about 1/4 the time, so I always click on TPM/E once more (and re-reload it once more) and then log in at the welcome bar. This is unacceptably convoluted--and please rest assured, this is the only way that consistently works.

In reflecting on all of the Wright flap debate and his ultimate resignation from his honorary post on Senator Obama's campaign, there has been little said about First Amendment rights.  Granted, the things he said made most of us cringe,  and I'm sure advisors on the Obama campaign are still cringing.  Despite the media's attempts to equate this to the Geraldine Ferraro debacle, this was not the same thing particularly when you put it all into context and think of the difference in Obama's response, and the swiftness of Wright's departure.

Crooksandliars.com has a video clip on the top of their page right now from The West Wing television show in which Penn and Teller burn a flag-or they don't.  You'd really have to see it to understand.  My only thought on this is with respect to both Wright and Ferraro's words, the media's response and much of the arguing over it all comes down to our freedom of speech and the first amendment.  Hillary Clinton made a splash a while back when she voted along with conservative Republicans for a failed flag burning amendment.

She's an expert triangulator and was positioning herself to run for president arguably by the time she began her carpetbagger campaign for Senate (which I supported her on and am glad she won).  Still, along with her Iraq and Iran votes, she in essence voted against first amendment rights with her flag burning choice.    It was just a moment to consider what Hillary was willing to give up in her triangulation in order to win.  As a big fan of the First Amendment, I see it on par with the racist stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NymRecFWgAs

I've been wanting to hear what Studs Terkel has to say about the Obama phenomenon.  Since they're both Chicagoans, I'm sure Studs has a particularly interesting perspective (as always).  But now that this Pastor Wright flare-up has finally touched the rawest of nerves, it reminds me of Studs' book "Race".  Studs calls it "the American Obsession", and it looks like now in this election we're finally diving into this obsession head first.

Has anyone seen any recent interviews with Studs?  If not, perhaps there's a journalist out there who can get him to weigh-in on Barack Obama 2008. 

I think he's about to turn 96, so I hope he's doing OK, and that we'll hear from him soon.  He's a national treasure.

"""With optimism, you look upon the sunny side of things. People say, 'Studs, you're an optimist.' I never said I was an optimist. I have hope because what's the alternative to hope? Despair? If you have despair, you might as well put your head in the oven."""

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clerical sexual deviancy allegations have been made against a variety of religious groups including but not exclusively Roman Catholic priests monks and nuns. An estimated 0.2% of Roman Catholic priests have been proven to be abusers.

Some incidents involved diocesan priests and members of the various Roman Catholic religious orders, with reports coming from the United States and Ireland and. Cases involved seminaries, schools, orphanages and other institutions (such as the Irish industrial schools) where children were in the care of clergy.
 
Criticism of the Church and its leadership focused on the failure to act upon information, and often to move priests who had received complaints from church to church in order to protect them. Some allegations have led to successful prosecutions of the accused, as well as civil cases settling for millions of dollars.

The John Jay Report, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, found accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, equaling about 4% of all U.S. priests between 1950 and 2002. Figures supplied by the Catholic League promote the view that abuse statistics in the Catholic Church are similar to abuse in other institutions such as the preliminary estimate of education abuse statistics compiled by the U. S. Department of Education.

I’M CURIOUS.  DID EVERY CATHOLIC LEAVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AFTER HEARING THEIR PRIEST HAD ABUSED CHILDREN?


sorry for repeat title - messed up copy/paste

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases

I apologize for the inflammatory title. But I've been reading many comments criticizing Obama for attending his church in light of Rev. Wright's speech, and they are all disturbing in a similar way.

This is a typical comment I read on another blog. It's by a conservative-leaning person who is opinionated but reasonable at times too. Not a complete wing-nut, in other words. Here it is:

"This is every Sunday for 20 years.
This is who marries you.
This is who baptizes your children.
This is your church.

Look, he can’t just disavow this. He needs more than distance, he needs people to understand why he let his little girls hear this stuff every weekend. He’ll have to explain why he’s given $26K to further this message."

The idea that these comments are made "every Sunday for 20 years" and "his little girls hear this stuff every weekend" is what is driving the furor behind Rev. Wright's remarks.

People have taken this one speech and generalized it into this little movie in their heads of what goes on in Obama’s church every day. Most people don’t go to black churches. Their only experience with what goes on inside them comes from movies like “Sister Act” and the occasional TV clip.

For all they know, Obama's daughters ARE hearing this type of rhetoric every weekend. Obama, this guy in their eyes who is still unfamiliar and a little suspect, IS nodding his head in agreement to the Hate-o Thon that's run every Sunday by Angry Black Preacher.

That's the assumption. I don't know what the reality is--I've never been to Obama's church--but until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume Obama's church is a lot like other churches. I'm going to grant him the same assumptions that I grant all other churches:

1. People aren't sheep. They don't necessarily agree with everything that the pastor says. They may love the sermons. They may feel blase about them. Not everyone has the same reaction.

2. People who attend church go as much for the sense of community and social aspects as for the sermons.

3. There may be things they don't like about their church, but overall, the positives outweigh the negatives.

Most Americans have a complex relationship with their religion. Until evidence to the contrary, we should grant Obama the same assumption.

It's fair to expect Obama to explain in detail what he likes about his church and what he doesn't. If we are to accept he has a complex relationship with his religion, we deserve a complex answer explaining that relationship in detail. 

But our minds should be ready for that answer. We should not be so quick to assume what goes on in a church every Sunday that we have never been in. Nor should we be so quick to tar Obama by association for remarks we have every reason to believe based on his past history, his books, and everything he has said, he doesn't believe in.

this is a test---my first blog, ever, just vanished, anyone have it?

What if George W. Bush were black?  He would've spent half of his adult life in prison.  Especially as an alcoholic youth blowing off the last year or so of his service in the National Guard.  Of course, he never would have gotten in to the National Guard, but that's another story. 
And if a black president tried to do what Bush has done, he would have been impeached 992* times by now. 
I do find it ironic, and moronic, that after hundreds of years where being white in America was definitely helpful, and being black generally like being born with 2 strikes, that the first time a black person has a good chance of being president, we hear this reverse racist, eye-rollingly stupid crap.
*  Yes, that number is a tip of the hat to the O'Jays.

(Disclaimer:  This is my first blog, please be gentle.)

Firestorms of opinion have been generated about how the Clinton and Obama campaigns should respond to the inflammatory words of Ferraro and Wright.  I can't help but find myself in agreement with almost everyone.  Like reading a voter pamphlet where arguments on both sides seem compelling, it is hard to come up with any clear sense of what's right and wrong.  All sides have a case to make, and any case can be refuted by the logic of another perspective.

Unfortunately, I’m not an expert on racial relations or the history of civil rights, but I sense that maybe a broader context is needed to understand and accurately digest what we're witnessing throughout this campaign.  What I lack in expertise, I make up for in passion on the subject, so, I’ll give it my best shot, understanding full well that I’m not the best man for the job.

The one thing that’s clear to me is - like violence - racism begets racism, and everyone is the victim, including racists themselves.  The other thing that’s clear, is there is a generational process at play here.

"There but for the grace of God go I."

In 1941, Wright had the misfortune of being born an African American, a child and growing up at a time in our society when racism was ran rampant.  He is very much a product of the 60’s; he lived what many of us from younger generations have only seen in grainy black and white news footage.  For those of us who never felt the pain, the bitter anger of being looked down upon, rejected, dismissed and hated, it is hard to even begin to relate to.  How many of us have lived under the threat of being lynched or worse?  How many of us have been attacked by dogs, hosed down or beaten simply because we wanted to be treated as equals?  It is a stretch for most of us to fully understand the mindset of one who has experienced such things.

It also takes a truly extraordinary individual to have experienced such things, and yet be able to set aside the negative emotions and love thy enemy.  MLK did this, and led a nation-changing movement while teaching others to do the same.  For that he is justly recognized as a major figure in American history.  But for many African Americans who've suffered the indignities of racism, letting go of the resentment is hard to do.  Clearly, Wright is among the latter category.  And in his resentment, he carries with him the seeds of reverse racism.  He can no better understand the perspective of a white person than a white person can understand his.  Wright may believe in his own mind that he is opposed to racism, but if so, he has become his own worst enemy.  (His anger certainly builds no bridges of trust!)  If he isn’t a reverse racist, then at a minimum his life experiences have robbed him of the ability to see white America and Europe as anything other than the enemy.  From that perspective, there is no way forward without the other side being the loser.  God Damn America?  Yeah, from his perspective, I get it.  I don't agree, but I understand how he could arrive at that sentiment.

Ferraro is from the same generation.  She fought her own fights as a woman in an era where women were also struggling for equality and fairness.  She believes that she's one of the good people out there fighting against discrimination.  I take her words at face-value - the anger we saw was real - that she really was offended that anyone would suggest she’s racist.  And yet, her own words reveal something, which, if it isn’t racism, was callously disrespectful to not only Barack Obama, but to any African American who has ever been discounted and overlooked because of their race or skin color.  At best, she’s grossly unaware of how her statements were insensitive and hurtful to African Americans and only reinforced racist thinking.  How could this come from woman who must personally understand being on the receiving end of discrimination?  How could she not see it?  Quite simply: her life experience as a white woman leaves her as blind to Reverend Wright’s mindset as his does to hers.

So what?

If I were either candidate, I would strive to point out that we’re seeing the echos of racism reverberating throughout our society, and that this is an opportunity to take another step forward in deepening our understanding of each other and write the closing chapters on racism in America.  Wright and Ferraro aren’t racists.  The the worlds they grew up in left an indelible mark on their characters, both positive and negative.  Both Ferraro and Wright have each, in their own ways, been champions in the fight against discrimination.   But lack of proximity or  familiarity to one another’s worlds leaves both ignorant of their own prejudices and to the harm some of their statements cause.  The words of Wright and Ferraro illustrate the gap between a wealthy white-person’s experience of the world, and the experience of many African Americans.  They can only see the world from limited perspectives... viewpoints inherited from - or at least immensely influenced by - the world in which they ‘cut their teeth’ 40-50 years ago.

But things have changed; it’s a different world today than it was in the 50’s and 60’s.  I’m not suggesting we’ve ‘arrived’ at full equality or that racism no longer exists, but, certainly, things have improved.  More to the point, matters of race are not as significant a factor for younger generations of voters (and this is as it should be if we’re looking for a sign that our society is on the right track to color-blindness).  The age of the 60’s civil rights activism is being replaced with a more pragmatic and conciliatory approach of younger generations.  We even see a divide in thinking between younger vs. older feminists.  Where the former look at things in more absolute and extreme ways, the next generation sees women’s issues in much broader contexts (e.g., they identify war as a women’s issue because of it’s impact on women and families).  While the older generation of feminists typically promote female candidates, the younger generation looks to promote candidates who best represent the interests of women, regardless of their gender.   The m.o. of the 60’s was riot, protest, fight, make demands - to rail against the establishment.  Todays generation seeks a more civic-minded, win-win approach - to win the fight from within.

While we should always respect those who came before us - recognizing the battles they fought and the benefits conferred upon future generations - should we be distracted by old fights of the past?  Shall we allow the comments of former leaders and candidates, who’s opinions and beliefs belong in another era, overshadow the comments of today’s candidates?  Do we descend into the fracas, or use this as an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding and move forward?

Yes, Obama needs to respond in a powerful way to reverend Wright’s fiery sermon.  But the response need not be to throw Wright under the bus.  In fact, the more powerful response is to elevate the dialogue by using Wright and Ferraro as the examples of what we, as a people, as a nation, are striving to leave behind.  And the challenge for Clinton, who is also from the older generation, will be to ‘find her voice’ in the present and future, instead of the past.

I’m sure many readers will find flaws in my essay, and I welcome constructive criticism.  As I said, I’m no expert on the subject, and I have limited time to put my thoughts into writing.  To be honest, I’m not 100% confident about everything I wrote - this is just me working out my own thoughts in public.  But, even if some of my assumptions are a stretch or some of my details are off, I think the key points remain valid.

I just got back from seeing the new Jim Carey, CGI version of Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who. While watching it, I came to the realization that in some ways (I'll try not to stretch the analogy too far) it parallels the current Democratic primary race.

In my view, Horton is Obama trying to get the public to hear what he is hearing, which in the campaign is not tiny persons living on a dust speck, but the silent hopes of the American People.

Clinton is the traditionalist kangaroo who is afraid of change and wants to boil the hope out of the speck in a cauldron of beezlenut oil. In fact she denies that hope even exists.

What Obama (and the American people) need is that one additional little voice to yell out and let the doubters know that hope is alive. I don't know if that voice is the voters of PA, or Al Gore finally weighing in, or perhaps - and this is a stretch of the parallel - the child of the 'kangaroo', which in this campaign would be Chelsea Clinton. But its clear the voices of 13 million Americans that have ready yelled out "We Are Here" (or perhaps it was 'Yes We Can!') have not yet been heard by the Kangaroo.

"The writing is on wall. Good luck to all"

We can all remember how banks and other financial institutions were bailed out of bad, promiscuous debt at tax-payer's expense in the not-so-distant past. Nothing new. And it seems the establishement is now hard at work to achieve social acceptance for a new, massive bail out. Funny how difficult bipartisanhip was for the last four years. Even funier how legislative unanimous agreement on this one is loomig. By the way, has anyone ever considered that government could actually be buying the banks it will rescue? That is how private enterprise operates and, for some reason, it would seem natural that Republicans and Democrats would like this idea. That way public finances would get some cash back once the banks are viable again.

But there is something new about this foretold debacle. Another emerging consensus refers to bailing out the poor mortgage payors, our beloved home-owning citizens who may not be able to make their monthly mortgage payments.

Has everyone forgotten the pervasive adds that fueled this disaster: "Interest rates are dropping. You may overpaying on mortgage interest. Quick! Refinance! Or even better, get a new mortgage for some extra-cash for investment or entertainment".

I wonder how much of the $285 billion dollar black hole actually went into purchasing more useless "made in China" crap. How much for payment of storage space to stow away the useless "made in China" crap that didn`t even fit in the house?

China is currently holding over $1 trillion USD in reserve. That stockpile is about the only damn withholding mounting pressure to replace the dolar -for the euro- as the oil-market currency. And that, would be terrible news for the US economy.

In the meanwhile, a couple of days ago I read in El Pais -Spain- an interview with Mr. Number 2 at the International Monetary Fund. The guy openly admitted that the ongoing recession will worsen, that a tough rescue mission is ahead of central banks around the world. The basic line: prepare for the worst. I was astounded to hear a stiff  like this one spilling it out in the media. Has he gone mad? Two hours later I try to show this online article to a friend and...oops, it`s gone, vaporized!  I can`t remember El Pais self-censuring like this at any time in the past.

Well, I just sold some real estate I had and secured a little nest of comfort for the bad times ahead. I hope everyone gets the message as the real storm approaches.

Is Obama some anti-American black separatist? That will certainly be the suspicion among most Americans, the uneducated white blue-collar voters as well as deep south whites. After flag-pin-gate, Muslim smears, Farrakahn smears, Michelle Obama's "proud" remarks, no hand on heart smear, his middle name... and just wait till they play that Wright sermon in a commercial right before the election. It will be Sista-Souljah times 10000000.

But if anyone actually took the time to read Obama's book they would think 'here is finally a president who deeply understands the problems and complexity concerning race and its relation to poverty. (Obama has even talked about rolling back affirmative action and supports class based affirmative action, and not race based affirmative action, something that MLK also supported) No leader should expect to lead our country into post-poverty or post-racial times if they don't have the proper understanding of the problems of race. I applaud Bush for denouncing the noose and denouncing using the word "lynching" lightly, and it was admirable him for turning attention to Africa and AIDS. But as Katrina came and left, there was a long window of opportunity to begin a social experiment to tackle and address the problem of race and poverty, yet the experiment of constructing a Jeffersonian democracy in the Middle East would be the only priority for this administration, and the people of Katrina were left with FEMA and formaldehyde laced trailers.

Anyhow, before the media repeatedly starts AGAIN asking the stupid question, "wait a minute, well WHO is Barack Obama? and WHAT are his views" I would implore them to read his books and you'll see his views on race, and his views certainly do not reflect black grievance, like those of his pastor, but admiration in the fact that "people can change" as he said in the South Carolina CNN debate when asked, "Do you think Bill Clinton was our first black president?"

Read an excerpt from a NYT book review, including a beautiful passage from Obama's book:

The Audacity of Hope hews closely to formula. Each of its nine chapters—on broad, thematic subjects like politics, opportunity, faith, race, and family—begins with an anecdote that suggests the point he wants to make about the subject, then moves on to his ruminations about it, and ends with another anecdote meant to drive the point home. These can tend toward the homiletic (the chapter on faith ends with the sentence "I know that tucking in my daughters that night, I grasped a little bit of heaven"). Most unusually for an American politician, though, he has a sense of historical irony—and is willing to articulate it. After being sworn in to the Senate he listens to a stirring speech of welcome by Senator Robert Byrd, who warns of the "dangerous encroachment, year after year, of the Executive Branch on the Senate's precious independence." "Listening to Senator Byrd," he reflects:

" I felt with full force all the essential contradictions of me in this new place, with its marble busts, its arcane traditions, its memories and its ghosts. I pondered the fact that, according to his own autobiography, Senator Byrd had received his first taste of leadership in his early twenties, as a member of the Raleigh County Ku Klux Klan, an association that he had long disavowed, an error he attributed—no doubt correctly—to the time and place in which he'd been raised, but which continued to surface as an issue throughout his career. I thought about how he had joined other giants of the Senate, like J. William Fulbright of Arkansas and Richard Russell of Georgia, in Southern resistance to civil rights legislation.

I wondered if this would matter to the liberals who now lionized Senator Byrd for his principled opposition to the Iraq War resolution—the MoveOn.org crowd, the heirs of the political counterculture the senator had spent much of his career disdaining. I wondered if it should matter. Senator Byrd's life—like most of ours—has been the struggle of warring impulses, a twining of darkness and light. And in that sense I realized that he really was a proper emblem for the Senate,whose rules and design reflect the grand compromise of America's founding : the bargain between Northern states and Southern states, the Senate's role as a guardian against the passions of the moment, a defender of minority rights and state sovereignty, but also a tool to protect the wealthy from the rabble, and assure slaveholders of noninterference with their peculiar institution. Stamped into the very fiber of the Senate, within its genetic code, was the same contest between power and principle that characterized America as a whole, a lasting expression of that great debate among a few brilliant, flawed men that had concluded with the creation of a form of government unique in its genius—yet blind to the whip and the chain."

Someone posted this here last week. I didn't catch the poster's name. But the info is important.
--------------------------------

How's this for history Michael. This is from the start of this campaign, back in May. Judge her on the company she keeps:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20commence.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=Milestones%3A+Hillary+Clinton&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Read the article first for context, then see the news footage from that dark day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSsgwajStCo&feature=related

This person was a close family friend and fundraiser (no rejecting or denouncing here). No matter what you "do" to create a persona of helping and charity, personal alliances speak volumes.

"Should Hillary Quit", asks the ad, with a big picture of Hillary's face.  I don't know.  I just don't know, okay?  Look,  I'm no Hillary hater, I've never met the Senator.  I have nothing against her face.  Her face is... likable enough.  But on tpm,  there's no escaping it.  Sometimes it shows up big.  Sometimes smaller.  Sometimes twice on the same page.  I wake up.  Grab a cup of coffee, click on tpm, and there it is: Hillary's face.  I click on the link to my blog.  Hillary's face. I click on someone else's post, purposely scroll down below Hillary's face and there it is: Hillary's face.  Half her face is staring back at me as I write this.  The longer I make this post, the more of her face I will see.  If I scroll down to


here..I can see her face in its entirety.  For the seventy-third time today.  
Earth to Josh.   

Anderson Cooper's show. Check it out.

You know, I find it offensive when people speak of Senator Obama as an empty suit. Even if I was not a supporter those words would be offensive. An Empty Suit to me would be an individual with no accomplishments to speak of, no real life experience to speak of, no real challenges they've overcome, nothing that warrants examination but their presentation: their empty suit.
Looking at Obama's life story one can only be both amazed and impressed about what he's achieved so far. Harvard Law, Constitutional Law professor, Illinois senate, US Senate and no silver spoon in his crib either... It there was one it would have been a wooden spoon, actually.

If he was not running for president he would clearly be viewed as a successful American.
But if the implication is that he should be more "experienced" to run for President, it begs the question: what kind of expericence? And do the other candidates have it to not merit the "Empty Suit" label?
To my mind, nobody is really experienced enough to be President except for incumbents. So the question should not be "Is so-and-so experienced enough to be President?" it should be  "Has so-and-so's life experience prepared them for the challenges of the presidency?"
And clearly on that basis, a variety of life experiences would be deemed relevant, not only time spent in the halls of Congress or on the Senate floor.

I have been dismayed at the way the Dems have acted since gaining power in 2006. They promised a lot but backed down instead. NOW, those in the House have openly defied the Bush Regime by passing a bill that does not grant telecoms retroactive immunity. This issue is at the the heart of the calculated "firewall" this Regime has constructed since taking office. It turns out that domestic spying started months BEFORE 9/11 and no one knows the depth or scope of the warrantless wiretapping in the U.S. The reason why Courts have not exercised their power as the Third CO-EQUAL branch of Government is because the Regime has repeatedly invoked the "states secret" privilege to have lawsuits dismissed. This privilege is essentially the Regime saying: "we can't argue this case because to do so would bring national security secrets out into the open, so you just have to believe us when we say there are no laws being broken."

The HUGE problem with this rationale is the proven record of deception by this Administration. For example, the Top 3 reasons we went to war in Iraq: vast stockpile of WMDs; connection between al-qaeda and Saddam Hussein; and vague implications to the attacks of 9/11. ALL 3 have been disproven... by our Government nonetheless! Pentagon reports and other agencies have concluded that there were virtually no WMDs; there was no al-qaeda in Iraq before we invaded; and there are not facts tying Saddam Hussein to the attacks on 9/11. *For more lies perpetrated by the Bush Regime, find a report released by the Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard /) that counted 935 false statements during the past 7 years.

If the Congress is truly interested in the pursuit of truth and of having a Government that is conducted by ALL 3 CO-EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, then we must allow the Courts to look into these key issues like domestic eavesdropping. So, stick to your guns Democrats and all of us in the public domain should express our support for truth, freedom and honesty!

The MSM  has grabbed a hold of the Jeremiah Wright story and ran with it. What exacerbates it is the video footage of Wright's flailing inflammatory sermons.  Senator John McCain, under very similar circumstances,  was allowed to merely disagree with some pretty backward statements made by one of his key supporters, Pastor John Hagee. Is there footage out there of Hagee making such contemptible remarks? Probably so.  But somehow I bet we won't see that on America's airwaves. Yet Hagee's remarks are on the record for all to read.

Obama does not have to throw Jeremiah Wright under the bus any more so than John McCain had to throw John Hagee under the bus.

Obama said he profoundly disagreed. That is sufficient. Once Obama gets beyond Hillary Clinton -- which he will if his supporters stick with him, remain focused and trust his judgment -- and he reaches the general election versus McCain, neither has any advantage, because they both have a crazy pastor in their closet. They will cancel each other out. 

Don't get caught up in the media frenzy. And more importantly, don't make demands of Obama that other candidates are not subject to.

Remember, Jeremiah Wright is not a surrogate of the Obama campaign. He is not an official representative of anything, except his own opinion and church. (That's the difference with Ferraro or the Harvard 'monster' woman)

 Furthermore many folks DO believe that America's wayward foreign policy had a hand in causing 9/11. (Which is basically what Wright said in a much more inflammatory way..) Read Noam Chomsky, and other poly sci experts to get the  'King James' version of the debate. The media is extracting the most inflammatory rhetoric and editing it together to create the exact reaction that some of you are now experiencing.

No one has to agree with everything that some one else says or does. Do you agree with everything your Mom says for example? NO,  and she raised you. Yet there may be profound differences of opinion.

Obama is no exception. Take a deep breath and get over it.

March 14, 2008

11am

 

Hello All,

I've decided to enter into the MoveOn.org 30 second Barack Obama ad competition and I am looking for a diverse group of people to come to Oakland to do 10 minute interviews. The gist of the interview will be what kind of country you want America to be, and why this translates into your support for Obama.

If you are interested or have any questions, please contact me:

blybrand@birdobot.com

Thanks in advance for your support on this,

Ben Lybrand

Intro You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.

Hello All, I've decided to enter into the MoveOn.org 30 second Barack Obama ad competition and I am looking for a diverse group of people to come to Oakland to do 10 minute interviews. The gist of the interview will be what kind of country you want America to be, and why this translates into your support for Obama. If you are interested or have any questions, please contact me: blybrand@birdobot.com Thanks in advance for your support on this, Ben Lybrand

URL:http://birdobot.com
Label: Image

On Countdown, Jonathan Alter is saying that Obama will need to answer questions about the sermons of pastor Wright that he did attend because <em>it is likely that there would have been other "inflammatory" sermons in 18 years</em>.

Now he has to defend himself agaist <em>hypothetical</em> guilt by association?

Next week our intrepid hero will prove a negative!

Your friendly fake consultant is an equal-opportunity consultative provider, and having <a href="http://fakeconsultant.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-3-am-phone-calls-or-fake-consultant.html">recently</a> been called upon to advise Hillary Clinton, I thought I might turn my attention today to helping out Barack Obama.

The thing is, should the gentleman be nominated, he’s going to need to choose a running mate…and it might not be as easy as it would seem.

For reasons we’ll discuss, the normal crop of candidates might be better left undisturbed…but what if we could bring to the table a running mate who offers an extraordinary understanding of the world’s interconnected economy, a close, personal relationship with many of the world’s leaders—and the kind of negotiating skills that humble even the United States Government?

And if all that wasn’t enough…a candidate for whom fundraising most assuredly won’t be a problem.

Curious?
Follow along, then, and we shall see…


Now before we begin naming names, let’s take a moment to explain why a large pool of ordinarily available likely running mates might not be available in this cycle.

An effective strategy in the past has been to choose from the community of sitting Senators, and many of the names being considered for Vice Presidential contention today are, in fact, of that group--Jim Webb, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton being three quick examples.

But employing that strategy in ‘08 might be a bad idea. At a time when Democrats are trying desperately to get 60 votes in the Senate; when at least one Democratic Senator is likely to be leaving for other elective office (and another is Joe Lieberman), we need to conserve whatever forces we have there for the legislative fights ahead.

Of course, that does leave Governors, ex-Governors, and distinguished former members of the military…which makes Bill Richardson, Janet Napolitano, Wes Clark—and maybe even Anthony Zinni—pretty good options.

But in the case of Governors, again, we hate to lose one who might currently hold office…and for reasons related to perceived foreign policy experience it would be even closer to an optimal condition if Obama could team up with someone who is on an intimate, first-name basis with many of the planet’s most influential leaders…and not just attending teas and MC’ing <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html">USO concerts</a> while meeting them.

It would also be nice to have an individual who is passionately devoted to expanding educational opportunities to the downtrodden worldwide…and providing them health care to boot—two issues that will be huge in this electoral cycle.

A choice that is out-of-the-box—and at the same time deeply mainstream.

So who might this magical personage be?

Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to consider…Vice President Bill Gates.

Go ahead. Let it sink in for a second.
It kind of works, doesn’t it?
Now let’s do a bit of why and why not:

What does it do for Obama?

Well, there is no doubt that Gates is vastly more familiar with all of our trading partners than almost anyone…blunting any attacks McCain might seek to launch regarding the Obama ticket’s “experience”.

McCain can probably tell you what the initials <a href="http://www.ecb.int/home/html/index.en.html">ECB</a> stand for, but Gates knows from decades of experience what international trade hardball with the European Union is all about…and he has years of personal experience negotiating across a table with our Chinese and Middle Eastern friends as well.

Africa is a place of major importance to the world as we advance into this century, and Gates can fairly be described by this time as an “Old Africa Hand” who knows his way around the continent because of his work with the <a href="http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm">Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation</a>…in fact, I’m willing to bet that he, too, owns some Somali clothing.

Then there’s education. McCain supports the failed “No Child Left Behind” concept, while Gates has spent $2 billion of his own money funding experimental school programs in this country and abroad for years that are ready to be rolled out nationwide and have a measurable track record of raising educational achievement…creating a record of accomplishment, a virtual Rolodex, and a depth of understanding regarding educational issues that neither McCain nor any other likely VP candidate--for either party--can touch.

And he can say the same things about healthcare—billions of his own money spent on increasing access to care, a second virtual Rolodex, and a record I suspect even John Edwards respects in helping those less fortunate live healthier lives.

Frankly, the “family bench” is so deep here that the two spouses could be Cabinet members in an Obama Administration; then come back in 2016 and run on their own ticket, with a good chance of winning—Michelle Obama is today a medical administrator who is well respected in her field…and Melinda Gates?

The record shows she moved from a senior management position with the world’s largest software firm to a senior management position at one of the world’s largest philanthropic institutions—suggesting that if the two of them were running this cycle they’d have a reasonable shot at beating any likely Republican ticket themselves.

And what about funding? There’s the possibility that McCain might choose Romney for a running mate—and that a Romney nomination might cause the Republican duo to consider using some of the Romney fortune to advance their campaign (think <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/mccain_campaign_banked_on_taxp.php">unusual loan arrangements</a> here…).

In what might be the greatest understatement ever, I posit that it is unlikely Romney would have access to more self-funding resources than Gates…which more than obviates any potential advantage such a move might create on the GOP side.

Another understatement? Gates running as Obama’s VP should “lock in” the all-important geek, nerd, and dork vote (as if we weren’t voting Obama anyway…). Even Steve Jobs might be inclined to vote for Gates.

One more? Name recognition…probably not a huge problem.

What would possibly motivate Gates to accept such a…well, a demotion?

For an answer, take the time to watch Gates’ March 12th <a href="http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2117">testimony</a> before the House Science and Technology Committee at their 50th anniversary event. As the most extremist Republicans tried and tried again to vilify him, it seemed to this observer that his responses suggested he was enjoying the skewering he gave Members such as Dana Rohrabacher and the overtly racist Phil Gingery in his replies.

There’s also precedent for such a move: The Gates Foundation has “lent” their own CEO to the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Directors for “corporate housekeeping” purposes.

There’s also the fact that his mother gave years of public service though her presence as a University of Washington Regent—and what son doesn’t want to make his Mom proud? (If you’re listening, Bill…this would make quite a Mother’s Day gift.)

And if all that wasn’t enough, Gates is transitioning away from a hands-on role at Microsoft…and might well be interested in an entirely new kind of challenge.

So if I were the Obama team, I might offer Gates the “science / education / technology” portfolio…and also a chance to be the behind the scenes “dragonslayer” in Congress—a sort of lobbyist-in-chief for the “nerd community” with a goal of improving education…which is the essential first step in resolving the “Two Americas” problem…who also has the ability to move the healthcare debate—here and worldwide.

I might also use the allure of giving him the chance to more directly oversee the spending of the $5 billion in checks Gates reports he has personally written over the years in income tax payments to the US Government—an idea that, based on the look on his face as he was referencing the payments, he might find very appealing.

And guess what? Gates is an immigration advocate—his company (and virtually all US tech companies) wants to expand the opportunities for <a href="http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h-1b.cfm">H-1B</a> visas…and it’s hard to find a better argument for immigration than pointing to jobs that Gates himself has seen created (as he says) “around” the top engineers and scientists that the visa program has brought to the US economy.

That’s the good news.

Unfortunately, it’s not always sunny in Bill’s Philadelphia

The very same antitrust cases that gave him experience staring down government negotiators will not be great for his image now—but this can be mitigated by pointing out that today he’s older and wiser; when combined with the relative obscurity of the subject matter (“antitrust…smantitrust” will be the likely “average voter” reaction) there should be no insurmountable issues…and besides, what are the odds that John McCain (a <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter7.html?&wired">Keating Five</a> survivor, just for starters) wins a battle of business ethics with any capitalist left of JP Morgan?

There are also those who view the H-1B program as a detriment to the ability to keep US programmers working…and just as with the NAFTA debate, those who see the benefit in open markets will have to effectively defend their point of view to the public at large.

The fact that Obama’s and Gates’ public statements suggest they might see the issue from different points of view could be considered a plus (if you support the idea that a President should have access to multiple viewpoints and robust debate when making decisions), or a minus (based on the idea that there would be constant infighting, rather than progress on issues).

So there we are: today’s advice is that grabbing a VP candidate from the pool of individuals commonly chosen might not be the best option this time…but if we reach way outside the system there’s a potential candidate that’s amazingly conversant with the very same foreign policy and national security issues upon which Obama will be challenged by McCain; a candidate for whom a commitment to improving education and healthcare is a demonstrable effort upon which he has personally spent billions of his own dollars…and a VP partner that is guaranteed to have access to more self-funding dollars than not just Romney, but possibly the entire state of Utah.

Go get him, Barack…and then let the battle be joined.