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. 

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.

Sorry about the long time.  Barack Obama has posted on the Huffington Post his explanation for his relationship for Rev Wright.  I think its a strong repudiation.  Here's the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html

Here's a quote... comments?

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Ben Smith at politico perplexes me.  He does a good job of posting information consistently and actually equally for both candidates.  But then, he often titles them or describes them in a manner that seems to me Hillary favorable.  I wouldn't say biased, but favorable. 

Anyways, in one of today's post, he labelled Obama's disagreeing with Rev Wright as "Defending Wright."  Which is wrong.  Obama doesn't defend Wright.  He just doesn't go far enough in rejecting him - and don't get me wrong, he needs to step up and reject Wright now. 

A better title would have been:  "Obama comments on Rev Wright."  Or, "Obama dos not reject but agrees with Rev Wright" would even be okay.  But saying he defends him?  Please Ben Smith.

Its a pattern of things for Ben Smith - who despite calling his blog something akin to having his fingers on the pulse of the Democratic race - who occasionally reverses for a few posts to make it seem like he's Obama fair.  He's not.  He's Obama favorable. And I wouldn't mind if he didn't call his blog, "A running conversation about the Democratic Party's choice for President in 2008." 

Some may argue, well what about DailyKos?  Its heavily Obamacentric no?  I agree.  But the difference is that Dailykos doesn't live on a MSM type publication which politico.com is.  They're aiming to be a bigger fish in the large political media pond.  If so, then, they need to tell Ben Smith to be less Clinton favorable.

This hopefully will become a series of blogs from me about the MSM, who I hate.  I seriously do.  Except for Olbermann of course.  And I know the Republicans and Clinton supporters will hate me - I can't help that.  They've got their own people to support and they can blog about that if they wish.

Another disclaimer- I know I'm an Obama supporter, Obamabot, Obamaniac, etc.  That said, I think the MSM has been wrong about both sides of the Democratic aisle.  They were heavy handed with Clinton early on, and they're heavy handed with Obama now (although Clinton clearly got the rougher treatment for longer).  Anyways.

The whole Reverend Wright issue is perplexing to me on many levels.  First, its been out there for awhile.  The timing is interesting, to say the least, and the fact is that its not as horrendous as what Ferraro said.  Ferraro talked in racist overtones.  Rev Wright did not.  He just said stupid things.  And I do think its dumb and stupid.  And I disagree with the Obama supporters in that it shouldn't be addressed.  I think Obama needs to put a stop to it now - and reject and denounce what he said.  Period.

Beyond that, though, is this really that important?  I think its more important to know exactly where our candidates are getting their money from.  As we all know, money talks, bullshit walks.   Isn't this more central to the issue of the Presidency than what Rev Wright or even former Congresswoman Ferraro said? 

Apparently not, per the MSM.  They barely even touched on the fact that Obama released his earmarks.  They let the whole tax return unveiling slide by the wayside.  They haven't used their supposed journalistic code to dig up why Senator Clinton refuses to tell us how she gets her money.  They haven't pursued why the White House and the Clinton library haven't released papers detailing their time in the WH.

Does this seem right to you?  It doesn't to me.  I suppose that sensationalism sells - our society loves that stuff.  But when does the media stop bringing us what we want (let's face it watching fat kid with light saber dancing is more fun than watching McCain talk) and start brining us what we need?  Who fulfills that role in our society?  Do they simply ignore these important issues for ratings?

Its scary.  We make important decisions on who we choose to be the Commander in Chief based on the information we receive.  But if the messenger alters the information in the name of the dollar sign, that information is tainted. 

Is this how you want to choose who's holding their finger on the button (more important than receiving a 3AM telephone call in my opinion). 

Of course, the opposite pole of the current MSM is CSpan.  And I haven't really seen anyone organize any CSpan parties lately.  But there's got to be a better way to make politics more palatable to normal people.

The question then becomes... how do we reject poor reporting?  How do we take back the reigns of political reporting?  What can the average person do to make sure that we get information unfiltered and unspun?

I wish I was smarter - maybe I could answer that.  I'm not sure.  Maybe its simply a matter of us calling out the media more and more.  Maybe that's whats needed.  Either way, we're going down a slippery slope, and the MSM is more than happy to be the grease that gets us there faster.

Excepting Olbermann, I'm declaring war on the MSM.  I hate them.  I think they have no journalistic standards whatsoever.  Their only standards have to do with two things:  Dollar and Sign. 

Before heading into the hospital this morning, I was watching MSNBC's show after Morning Joe.  I was annoyed then to hear Mika Brzezinski say that both campaigns were digging a hole by both going negative.

Say what? 

If I remember correctly, it was Clinton's campaign that decide to throw the kitchen sink at Obama.  He's been just responding to what Clinton's been throwing.  He's only been more forceful about asking her to reveal the truths in her campaign and being more transparent.  He has not personally attacked her character or her gender.  He has not said that McCain would be better than her as a CiC.  It goes on and on.

To say that Obama is half responsible for this is ridiculous.  No doubt that he does shoulder a small part of the blame - by simply responding.  But if someone's sucker punching you for the political prizefight of your life, what are you going to do?  While he can hold her back and let her punch at him hurricane style (you know when your little brother throws a crazy amount of wild punches while you hold his head back and act bored), he needs to land some serious blows of his own.  Which is what he's trying to do.

The funny thing is, the MSM has put Obama in between a rock and a hard place.  If he would have just sat there, then the MSM questions his ability to fight - he's too aloof.  If he fights back, then they say he's just sinking down to Clinton's level and is responsible for this division. 

I heard it on more than one source, so this is not simply just one program.  I find it disturbing and a clear attempt by the MSM to influence the election their way - so they can get ratings up all the way until August.  Are we that gullible?  Based on what happened in Ohio, I guess some of us are.

This 30 minutes of television is one of the best I've seen recently.  

First, Keith Olbermann broadcast a special comment which is a first for him regarding a specific Democrat - Hillary Clinton.  I won't spoil it and say what he said.  For me, though, it was extraordinarily heartfelt and sincere.  I had never known that he had been supported by the Clinton's before, although I did know he was a Clinton supporter.  In this moment, he encapsulated the pain, sorrow, and anger that us hardcore Clinton to hardcore Obama voters have held.  I never clapped by myself watching TV by myself while running before.  I gave him a standing ovation at home.

The other amazing event was watching Pat Buchanan tell a black female analyst on the Dan Abrams show to "Shut up."  It was horrible, disgusting, and absolutely patronizing.  Luckily, Rachel Maddow came to her defense and told Buchanan that he was ridiculous and he had never heard anyone say that to another analyst.

Thank you Keith Olbermann.  You are the only journalist I trust.  It shows your strength and sincerity to find truth in not only the Republican but the Democrat's mistakes as well.   

Imagine two years ago if a Republican told us that African Americans only got where they were because they were black?  What if they said that we hate on Republicans only because of reverse racism?  What would have happened?  Democrats all over the US would have let out a collective rejection.  More than that, they would have been calling for someone's head.  They would have lit up the radio shows and the tv shows wondering how in the world that anyone this day and age could think that.  

Sadly, in the past few days - it wasn't a Republican.  It was a Democrat.  A senior Democrat.  And what did McClinton have to say about it?  She disagreed with it.  

Racism has changed over the years.  Where it was "go to the back of the bus," its become, "wait your turn, or be my Vice President even though you're winning."  Where it was "you're lucky to even get a bathroom" its now "you're lucky you're black."  Where it was "he's a nice African American," its now, "he's so articulate and clean."

Racism lies in the threads of subtlety.  The Republican doesn't do it well.   That's because they have a whole half of a nation (Democrats) going after them if they do.  But if a Democrat can subtly do it - the only ones who notices are the progressives and far left.  They know the Republican party won't denounce them.  Republicans probably wouldn't bat an eye.  That means more than half won't say anything.  Its more accepted.. and dangerous.

And here we have Ferraro doing this.  And yet there are Democrats somehow justifying it.  Its subtle racism.  I know I'll be flamed on this, but it is.  And the only reason she has not been fired has been because a Democrat said it.  And that is sad.  It is a horrible indication to how the campaign is going.  It is a sad day to think that any Democrat is willing to throw a proud race under the rug for political gain.  

And I'm sure that a ton of you will light me up and point to specific arguments here or there as to how I'm wrong.  That's certainly your right.  I'm not here to argue with you, but just to express my frustration.  But the reality is that I am both angry and sad - we have marginalized a race for the purpose of victory.  It used to be Democrats were good for at least supporting minorities.  Not anymore.  Good job Hillary.  Good job.

We already know that he is pro-Obama, so for the die hard Clinton fans, this will just be fuel added to the fire.  But for Obama supporters, I bet this encapsulates what a lot of us feel.  Its a good article if you're from the Obama side.  I wonder if it resonates with the independent side of things.  

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3510778.ece

The patterns are staggeringly unaltered. Last Thursday The Washing-ton Post ran an article reporting on the almost comic divisions within the Clinton camp: how chaotic the planning had been, how much chief pollster Mark Penn hated all the other advisers, how even in the wake of a sudden victory most of the Clintonites were eager to score rancid points off each other.

The secrecy and paranoia endure too. Releasing tax returns is routine for a presidential candidate. Barack Obama did it some time back. The Clintons still haven’t – and say they won’t for more than another month. Why? They have no explanation. They seem affronted by the question.

When you look at the electoral map if the Clintons run again, you also see a reversion to the old patterns of the 1990s – the patterns that cynical political strategists such as Karl Rove and Dick Morris have been exploiting for two decades. The country – scrambled by the post-baby-boomer pragmatism of Obama – snaps back into classic red-blue mode, with the blue areas denoting Democratic-leaning states around the edge and true red Republican states in the heartlands.

The Clintons are comfortable with this polarisation. They need it. Even when running against a fellow Democrat, they instinctively reach for it. Last week, in response to the Obama camp’s request that they release their tax returns, Clinton’s spokesman called Obama a new Ken Starr. For the Clintons, all Democrats who oppose them are . . . Republicans. And all Republicans are evil.

And evil means that anything the Clintons do in self-defence is excusable – even playing the race card, and the Muslim card, and the gender card, and every sleazy gambit that the politics of fear can come up with. This is how they have arrested the Obama juggernaut. It’s the only game they know how to play.

I grew up idolizing Michael Jordan.  The guy was simply phenomenal on the basketball court.  He was graceful, powerful, and dominating in his prime.  He was also presented to us as an all around nice guy, partly to sell sneakers, but also because outside of the court (and casinos) he was a decent guy.  But in the arena and on the practice court he was ruthless.  He had a competitive fire that very few had, and it spilled over onto his teammates - often challenging them to do better.

Grant Hill came out of Duke similarly talented.  Highly touted and talented, he was known for his stellar on court play and slashing style.  He also had the charisma, charm, and looks to be just as good as Jordan in the off court marketing arena.  And, as far as I know (amazing how that comes up again and again), was genuinely nice guy.   He however never made as far as Jordan.  Did well, but wasn't on the top.  

There's something to be said about this for Obama.  Because he's framing himself to be the bringer of the new politics of hope and positivity, he has to stay above the fray that is being thrown at him from both McCain and Clinton.  Clinton wants him to be her VP even though she mathematically can't win, and the Republicans want her to win because they think it'll be easier to go against her.  If he sinks to their level wholeheartedly, he risks losing the tone of renewal that he wants so badly to bring to politics.

The solution is then to be more like Mike.  Repeat it after me Barack Obama, "I want to be like Mike... I wanna be I wanna be like Mike!"  He needs to stay above the fray, but engage the Clintons enough to defend himself and start overtaking the news cycle.  He needs to use his surrogates more - leaning on the elders to attack Clinton openly for her transgressions.  He needs to get more agitated at the Clinton politics - not whining, but generally pissed that someone would even go there calling him Ken Starr.

Most importantly, I think, he needs to frame the discussion and tell people what they're going to hear from McClinton.  Tell them that how she is going to try to win the nomination and how absolutely wrong it is for a Democrat to be doing this to a Democrat – and he needs to stay on that.  If he told the Democratic voting block that she will call me names, throw rocks, etc because she is getting desperate, we come to think of him as sage as well.

Michael Jordan use to say that he could play his defender like a puppet master plays a puppet.  And he could.  Obama needs to learn the art of puppet mastering quickly to close out this race and ensure a peaceful nomination process.