Any polls?

It's interesting that we haven't heard much from Clinton supporters such as Stephanie Tubbs-Jones during this debacle. It's also interesting how the Clinton campaign has tried to blame others for its own repulsive gaffe.

I talked to my moms, staunch black Hillary supporter, about the RFK comment. At first blush, she was prepared to accept the Clinton campaign's weak defense on the basis of historical fact. I then asked her if she was aware of the many threats on Obama's life resulting in his receiving Secret Service protection a year earlier than most candidates. I also told her that Clinton knew this. I then asked her if this, combined with the many other racial attacks on Obama, changed anything for her in terms of her support of this candidate.

She told me she couldn't give a definitive answer and had to think about it.

She avoided my calls for almost a day.

Finally, she called and said slowly and with regret: "I think you might be right about her. I think you might just be right."

Thank you I said.

And to those who call Barack Obama weak, I counter that no man who knows that his bid for leadership of a nation might cost him his own life and his young daughters at any moment due to hate can be called a man without courage, purpose, grit and determination. I think it's wise for the Obama campaign to downplay this unfortunate and ugly aspect of his bid for the presidency. Even were he to be cut down in action today, this nation -- because of his hope and courage -- will never be the same again.

 Remember when you and your brother used to run through the house and you'd knock over your mother's lamp and she'd yell, "You see?! This is why we can't have nice things!"? That's how I feel about Cynthia Ruccia. This 55 year old sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics is running through the Democratic Party's house knocking over stuff and in November we'll all be yelling "See? This is why we can't win elections!"

Cynthia and them have started Clinton Supporters Count Too. It's a group of Democrat women in swing states who will campaign against Barack Obama in the general election. Please go back and read that last sentence. I'll wait. Read it? Thank you. I was jogging this morning and heard a story about her on NPR. In it, she whined that the Democrats have catered to Blacks while ignoring women. For real. She said that. And in the NY Times she said “We, the most loyal constituency, are being told to sit down, shut up and get to the back of the bus." Hmmm...the back of the bus...that rings a bell...what key segment of the Democratic party used to have to ride in the back of the bus...help me, I just can't place it...women? No, no that's not it.

When people asked Hillary to exit the race because it is mathematically impossible for her to win, Ruccia said she felt women were being told "to sit down, shut up, and get with the program." Hm. Funny, neither John Edwards, Mitt Romney, nor Mike Huckabee had a problem leaving the race for the good of their parties when it was clear that they were not going to be the nominee. In fact, it would have made sense for Mitt and Huck to pull a Hillary and fight to the bitter end because many Republicans loathe McCain. But Republicans are about winning; Democrats like this woman here are about whining. 

Let them stack the Supreme Court with young(ish), far-right leaning judges because Cynthia Ruccia's candidate didn't win. Let them "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" because Cynthia Ruccia's candidate didn't win.

I have to wonder what is going on in this woman's pink-caddy-lusting life that she can be so offended by the democratic rejection of an admittedly flawed candidate. It's not like we're talking about Kathleen Sebelius or Condoleeza Rice--women whose political achievements are theirs and theirs alone and not inextricably tied to their husbands. This is Hillary! Hillary Whitewater, Travelgate, Failed Healthcare, Lewinsky, Stole Furniture From the White House, Carpetbagger, Voted for the War, Won't Bake Cookies, Threatened to Obliterate Iran, BestFriends4Ever with Richard Mellon Scaife, Rending the Democratic Party Asunder with her Ambition Rodham Clinton. See it's the person not the woman people have a problem with!

After reading this BS in the nytimes about Hillary losing because of sexism, I had to repost this. Had to.


The media is actually giving Hillary positive press for her tantrums and her claims that the media is pro-Obama. They’re spinning it as a rallying cry for feminists. Taking lead from Tina Fey’s sketch on SNL, her tantrum is somehow being spun into an ownership of the word, “bi*ch.” You have people on tv talking about the double standards that women face in politics (i.e., men are assertive and women are bi*ches).

Now, I won’t deny that women face double standards. And I know that there is some truth in that analysis. But this is not Jane Doe, this is Hillary Clinton. Guess what, that “double standard” theory doesn’t fly when her opponent has gone out of his way to be as respectful as he possibly can towards her (despite her repeated attacks). I could see if she was running against some sexist prick. But she’s not. Yet she wants to take her anger at the media and re-direct it towards Obama and his success? Why doesn’t the media focus it’s attention on how disrespectful she has been towards him? She won’t acknowledge his victories; she mocks his message; she scolds his supporters; she calls him an empty suit; she calls his words, “cheap,” defends McCain. The list goes on and on. I don’t care if she’s a woman, man or whatever . . . when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

“Shame on you Barack Obama”?!?!?! Who is she to talk to him like he’s some 4 year old? This ain’t pre-school and her condescending attitude is getting real tired, real fast. Senator Obama is a grown man. He’s just as accomplished as she is, (check their senate records) yet she wants to go around the country and call him some naive rookie?

She dismisses his supporters and ignores the impact that he has had. It’s never good enough. He can win 11 straight states by an average of 33%, but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can expand the Democratic party by bringing in Independents, cross-over Republicans and first-time voters, but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can draw crowds of 70,000 but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can win more states, have a commanding lead in Pledged delegates, have a strong lead in the popular vote . . . but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! She needs to stop making excuses. She needs to recognize that he's just doing a better job at reaching the voters than she is. Plain and simple. 

It has nothing to do with being a man or woman. Democratic primary voters don’t like negative politics . . . it’s as simple as that. This goes to show that there are differences in how the media treats race and gender. I’m not saying that they’re better or worse, just different. I’m just gonna say it. This country has an instinct to protect white women. It can be a burden at times (i.e., Cult of True Womanhood) but it's still there. Hillary gets her feelings hurt and voters rush to her aide. She throws a fit and we make excuses because, after all, we can’t forget those double standards, right? Yet, at the same time, we have an instinct to fear black men.

Tell me, what would happen if Obama went on a tirade against Hillary, like she’s done ? What would happen if he (gasp) raised his voice to this white woman? What would happen if he spent all of his time talking about the “white man,” the way Hillary talks about the “boys club?” Rick Lazio, a white man, found out when he “invaded her personal space.” If he took the fall, you can imagine what would happen to Obama the second he steps out of line. Hillary faces a lot of obstacles through sexism, no doubt. But there are moments where she benefits as well. There are moments where she has the luxury to portray herself as the victim to garner sympathy from voters and the media.

There are moments where she can, as Melissa Harris-Lacewell (a black woman, professor) notes, slip in and out of her “Scarlett O’Hara” routine. It’s a prime example of how mainstream media discusses gender bias without recognizing the white privilege that often comes with it. You want to talk about double standards? Obama has run his campaign under the interrogation of white approval ever since he made that speech at the DNC in 2004.

He knows he can’t do or say certain things because he can’t afford to make white people uncomfortable, especially when running against a white woman. Once again, I know that we have to fight sexism as vigorously as we fight racism. And we should be doing a better job at it. But I also know that there are many “oppressed” white women who would never trade places with my black ass. All I'm saying is that it's more complicated than the media would like to suggest. So to the media: Fine, point out the double standards. But don’t make excuses for Hillary’s poor and divisive behavior. And don’t pretend like Obama doesn’t walk a tight rope everyday as well.

Obama caught hell just for saying, “you’re likeable, enough” because people didn’t like the tone of his voice. He caught hell for the “snub” because he happened to be talking to someone else when she came by. I swear, I almost fell out of my chair late last week when I heard a pundit criticize Obama for WRITING ON HIS NOTEPAD while Hillary spoke at the debate. I guess he was being disrespectful because he wasn’t looking at her when she talked. Give me a break!


I can’t make this any clearer. Obama has to RUN AWAY from issues of race for fear of being labled the “black candidate.” It’s the only way he can win. Yet, Hillary gets to embrace “girl power” in ways Obama could NEVER embrace “black power.” Some see Hillary as a victim. But some of us also know what discrimination is. And for a lot of us, we see Hillary as a grown woman who knows exactly what she’s doing.

She conveniently plays off of gender oppression every chance she gets. Some of us don’t see her as a victim, and never have. What we see is a privileged person who thought the white house was her entitlement. But the media keeps falling for her BS. The narrative remains the same . . . everything goes back to “POOR HILLARY”

I can relate to the Obama's latest faux pas with Detroit reporter, Peggy Agar. Seems the"O" man slipped up and referred to the reporter as "sweetie" while trying to brush her off. Bad move in this hyper sensitive age of political correctness. And the reporter, to her credit, saw her opportunity and took it. Talk about "15 minutes of fame" . Well this sweetie is signing off is what she said at the end of her broadcast or something to that effect. Trust me, her tone was a lot worse than it reads. The Obama man was forced to call back and leave an apology on her voice mail. (They even played the voice mail on WXYZ Television, her employer) "Hi this is Barack Obama.... I meant no disrespect so I am duly chastened on that front."


My wife, of course, thought her hero was out of line. But she's a professional who works in a male dominated field, so I would expect no less. "You have that problem too Mister. Have you ever heard yourself when you talk to total strangers?" "Hi 'hon', sorry 'gorgeous', and yes I have heard you use 'sweetie' on more than one occasion". "Guilty as charged" I declare, "and I will stop". " Why do you think I am always correcting you? Some women actually find that offensive. "



Of course being who I am, I had to defend myself:"Yeah but women do it too. There are these older women I work with who always refer to me or other guys at the job as "hon". "Yes but they are older right?" Yes, so what's the difference? "They can do that and get away with it. " "They came from a different time when it was acceptable, it isn't anymore." " So would it be cool for an older man to use the term' sweetie' when addressing a women?" "Of course not! What the hell is wrong with you?"




I am thinking that I don't know, and that right about now it feels good not to be a politician. I wonder if Michelle never gave the Obama these life lessons. "That's a bad habit of mine."
Obama, you are not alone.



http://field-negro.blogspot.com/

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/
Oh Hell No.

We've discussed the impending sense of anxiety those sympathetic to white supremacy, white hegemony, white superiority--whatever you want to call it, feel when they look at a brilliant and successful black person who succeeds despite the odds and puts the lie to their very faith (and white supremacy is more a matter of "faith" than anything else) but you have to be stunned by the unbelievable ignorance of Kathleen Parker's latest column for the Chicago Tribune, even if you read that gay-baiting mess in the Post today.


The fact that Parkers is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group shows how utterly mainstream nativist white thought is--you would never see Louis Farrakhan with a nationally syndicated column, the backlash would be enormous. Yet here is Parker, lauding the virtues of "full-blooded" Americans.

Full-bloodedness is an old coin that's gaining currency in the new American realm. Meaning: Politics may no longer be so much about race and gender as about heritage, core values, and made-in-America. Just as we once and still have a cultural divide in this country, we now have a patriot divide.

The answer has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin, which Obama donned for a campaign swing through West Virginia, or even military service, though that helps. It's also not about flagpoles in front yards or magnetic ribbons stuck on tailgates.

It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.

Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically—and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century—there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.

We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants. But there's a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.

[...]

Yet, white Americans primarily—and Southerners, rural and small-town folks especially—have been put on the defensive for their concerns with "guns, God and gays," as Howard Dean put it in 2003. And more recently, for clinging to "guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," as Obama described white, working-class Pennsylvanians who preferred his opponent.

Steve Benen has already discussed this and pointed out that Obama's grandfather served in World War II but I want to further challenge the very premise that there is such a thing as a "full blooded American". What she means by this of course, is "white Americans". She makes this plain in that last paragraph.


What Parker needs is a history lesson. (PAUSE Let's not forget about Native-Americans. PLAY) There are white men on our dollar bills, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that black men bled on battlefields in the pursuit of American independence. Before our ancestors were more than three-fifths of a person they fought to share a dream that would be denied them for hundreds of years later, that promissory note MLK talked about. They fought to preserve the Union even before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Our ancestors fought in World War I only to come home and be lynched in uniform. We fought in World War II, despite the fact that units were still segregated, and we were still treated as second class citizens under the law.


Full blooded? This nation's history is full of the blood of our ancestors and their sacrifices, and the only reason I can't "trace my bloodline" back to prove it is back then we were listed next to pitchforks and lanterns as farm equipment. Full blooded? How could we be full blooded anything? That choice was taken from us--we wear that reality in our skin tones and hair textures. You may have forgotten but we haven't.


Make no mistake, racists at every level tried to prevent our ancestors from fighting, because the very act of sacrificing for this country made it as much ours as it did theirs, despite the centuries they would spend trying to deny it. Those denials continue.


So Parker wants to play Patriot Games? Let's go. No one loves this country more than we love this country, because we loved this country even when it didn't love us. Nobody can say that like we can say it. This isn't about Obama's father being from Kenya--Parker's racialized understanding of what is "American" is as exclusive as possible. No one was talking about "full-blooded Americans" when Joe Lieberman was running for Vice President; she is talking about any American who does not share the color of her skin.


I said more than a year ago that this election would be an argument over what we define as American. Parker and her "conservative" friends want American to mean "white". What I forgot, and what they don't realize, is that history has already settled everything.

His bold legislative work on the Illinois Death Penalty, and how he made a difference between life and death:
http://www.icadp.org/page236.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/obama.death.pena... /

His sponsorship of a bill that brought health insurance to 150,000, including 70,000 uninsured Children, again, during his time serving in the Illinois Statehouse:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/14/f...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712170003

His work on both the Immigration bill during his time in the US senate and his sponsorship of Ethics legislation (something he did both while in the State House, and in the Senate) that called for some of the most impactful reform regarding lobbyists since Watergate (as he likes to term it):http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/14/f...
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/01/200...

and his sponsored and co sponsored Bills in the U.S. Senate.......which include worthwhile bills dealing with a wide range of issues, from Election reform bills to the Cooperative Proliferation Detection reduction Act (w/t Sen. Lugar) to Internet database transparency Act.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/271 /
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/Novembe...
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060908-senate_passes_c /


And...

While cruising through the internet the other day, I stumbled across a blog post for a major publication that was shocking because of its blunt honesty. Those of you who consume the mainstream media know that on certain topics, particularly race, there is a lot of hemming and hawing, but very little blunt honesty.


Anyway, the post, which you can find here, was about the hurdles Obama will have to jump to get votes in areas where folks can't fathom supporting a black man for president. It's a topic most of us are familiar with, and it's one that's been discussed rather frequently in this campaign.


Here's an excerpt from the blog where the reporter is talking to a guy in Kentucky about Obama's chances in the state. The guy is explaining he won't vote for Obama.

Race,” Patrick said matter-of-factly. “I’ve talked to people—a woman who was chair of county elections last year, she said she wouldn’t vote for a black man.” Patrick said he wouldn’t vote for Obama either.

Why not?

“Race. I really don’t want an African-American as President. Race.”

What about race?

“I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That’s my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did.” He meant that it went Republican. “Now what caused that? Race. There’s a lot of white people that just wouldn’t vote for a colored person. Especially older people. They know what happened in the sixties. Under thirty—they don’t remember. I do. I was here.”

Not that's some blunt honesty for you.


Black people commonly say that we would rather an openly racist person to one that hides in the shadows, but, man, when you see that crap out in the open it is pretty jarring. I mean, it's one thing when somebody is racist and they have no power over your lives, but an openly racist person that can affect your life is a frightening prospect.


For me, the scary part is that once you've established that someone or some people are just blatantly racist, what's your next step. Can you really appeal to the better nature of a racist? If you become angry and denounce their racism, will they even care? They may try to avoid the public scorn, but will it affect their hearts in any way?


It sounds good to say that open racism is easier to combat, but really combating any injustice depends on the person committing the injustice feeling some shame, or having the power to get vengeance. I'm not sure either of those dynamics exist in a case like the one involving the guy from the New Yorker article.


How do you battle entrenched racism, particularly when folks believe that their racism is justified and reasonable? This guy, and many like him, clearly believe that black progress is a threat to the livelihood of white folks, and nothing anyone says will convince them otherwise. No statistics, no experts, no personal anecdotes can convince most racists that their racism is an incorrect emotion.


So, I wonder how we as a country, particularly we as black folks, should proceed. Clearly, we cannot afford to isolate ourselves and hope that racism will disappear on its own. Not only do we not have the resources to do that, but studies have shown that some prejudices can be erased with exposure to new experiences.


But, is it worth our time to engage and discuss racial issues with people who have clearly embraced a way of thinking that will never allow black folks to be full and equal members of society? How are we supposed to hold a conversation with someone who has clearly stated that they believe that black politicians are only out to help black folks? Even if we ask them what that says about white politicians, will they even care?


In the black community, we often liken ourselves to crabs in a barrel who pull down any other crab attempting to escape to a better life. We ruefully chuckle that this mindset is a "black think." Yet, clearly, that's one of the biggest lies every told to black people or told by black people. It's a human reaction to view the progress of others as a threat to our own progress. It's perfectly human to react with fear and lash out when we feel that chance for the "good life" is slipping away?


Obama has argued that if we improve the conditions of all Americans, we won't have to worry as much about racial strife because prosperity breeds unity. Yet, I wonder if the prosperity only hides the fault lines that have existed and may always exist. I wonder what it takes to change the core of a man or woman.


Honestly, I'm just wondering.




http://ravingblacklunatic.blogspot.com/

Never thought I'd say this but maybe he does need her to win. POLITICO.

An Obama-Clinton ticket would definitely be out of the ordinary. But 2008 is not an ordinary year. Here’s why the skeptics may be wrong. Five reasons why Barack Obama should offer Hillary Rodham Clinton the vice presidential nomination — and why she would take it. 1. It’s not his choice. Clinton’s support among her most loyal partisans, women’s groups especially, is as intense as Obama’s is among African-Americans and young people. The pressure he will be under to unite the party by selecting her may be insurmountable. Without Clinton, Obama would have to spend enormous amounts of time and political capital bringing blue-collar voters, Catholics, Jews and Hispanics on board. There would be no better signal to potentially wary constituencies than bringing their preferred candidate into the fold. Hillary and Bill Clinton could be tasked with bringing these folks home, allowing Obama to focus on growing his base and reaching out to independents and disaffected Republicans. 2. It’s a character test for him. Obama does not like Clinton. Who cares? Dwight Eisenhower did not like Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy did not like Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan did not like George H.W. Bush. Obama’s ability to rise above personal sentiment will be an early and decisive test of whether he really has the ability to transcend divisions and be the uniter he says he is. Multimedia The Deconstruction Zone - May 8th 3. The Sicilian hug. If the Clintons have an independent power base — and they do, even in defeat — it is better to have Hillary Clinton under close watch in the White House than in the Senate (and, in Bill Clinton’s case, in foreign capitals around the world) making mischief. 4. It’s an unbeatable merger of strengths. Obama is nothing but disciplined in pursuit of victory, and he and Hillary Clinton might be, as Bill Clinton said, an “almost unstoppable force” (even if he was envisioning a different order on the ticket). The combination would align nearly all of the top operatives in the Democratic Party around the same goal and would swamp Republicans with the most potent fundraising operation in history. The ticket would start off with a paid staff of approximately 1,500 people, and an organization from the national level down to precincts in every state in the country. While John McCain is recruiting county coordinators, precinct captains, etc., Obama-Clinton would on day one have an operation that would surpass what Bush-Cheney assembled in 2004.

While Ms. Hillary is out threatening to obliterate Iran, Obama is out trying to bring peace to Nigeria. Absolutely unbelievable.

Even if the deal doesn't hold, it's just amazing that a US presidential candidate, in the midst of a three-on-one political battle (vs. McCain, Clinton and the Media) somehow finds time to appeal for a ceasefire in the volatile Niger Delta.

From ThisDay's report in Port Harcourt, Nigeria

The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has said it is considering a temporary cessation of hostilities in the oil-producing region based on an appeal by United States presidential hopeful, Senator Barack Obama.

MEND also said in an e-mail that its ceasefire was to enable the federal government to have a rethink over the way it has handled the matter concerning its leader, Mr. Henry Okah.

The spate of attacks in the last two weeks has led to more volatility in the crude oil market with substantial production cuts in Nigeria.

And this isn't the first time. Back in January, JANUARY, he was on the horn to Kenya trying to help calm the violence in the wake of contested elections there.

Of course the story of Obama's action in this case contrasted with Hillary's bluster is a fun political story in the context of this increasingly-absurd campaign, and you can find the same Reuters story cut and paste across a variety of news sites like Politico.

But I want to go a step further and try to be the media I want to see. What is MEND? Why is there so much violence in the Niger delta? And why should we care?

There's an excellent primer on the situation over at The Oil Drum, a site devoted to discussing resource depletion in general and peak oil in particular. In March of 2007, Jeff Vail wrote a piece titled "Nigeria: Energy Infrastructure Firestorm"

 

!
So close.
So so close.
Damn you Rush Limbaugh!

Oh man. I'm on the edge of my seat!

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A judge acquitted three New York Police Department detectives of all charges Friday morning in the shooting death of an unarmed BLACK man in a 50-bullet barrage, hours before he was to be married.


This was not a murder trial. The men were given lesser charges that I believe were more suited to their crime but I don't see any justice in allowing them to go free without consequences.

And I will say this: 50 shots at an unarmed target. That kind of thing never, ever seems to happen to anyone else.

Detectives Michael Oliver and Gescard Isnora were found not guilty of charges of manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment in the death of Sean Bell, 23, and the wounding of two of his friends.

Detective Marc Cooper was acquitted of reckless endangerment.



We sure are lucky we're black.

We've heard, ad infintum, the BS about why Obama can't 'close the deal'.

But, why can't Hillary Clinton Close the deal?

Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don’t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?

Why to those questions and a hundred more like them.

She's Hillary Clinton. She might not have the same amount of money to spend. High name recognition, impressive early poll numbers, on the political scene since 1992. WHY CAN'T
SHE "CLOSE THE DEAL?"

Why are people voting for that woman? NBC and FOX call it for Hillary Clinton. I'm disappointed.