The Daily Beast has an interesting blog by Linda Hirshman on How The GOP Loses Women:

Watch out, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Locked in a Republican primary battle for governor of Texas, and unwilling to say women should go to jail for their abortions, she is the next duck in the barefoot and pregnant shooting gallery. All the coverage has been about the conservative attack on the Republican establishment. But Scozzafava's defeat and the mounting campaign against Hutchison reveals a fascinating and underreported problem for the Republicans: They will only run women who will say that women should not control their reproductive fates. Although there are many male Republican candidates who easily embrace this position, politically accomplished women who believe in criminal abortion are rare, even in the Republican Party. And the ones who surface are likely to be, well, rogue.

(Monster)
Once the religious, the hunted and weary
Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
Came to this country to build a new vision
Far from the reaches of kingdom and pope
Like good Christians, some would burn the witches
Later some got slaves to gather riches

But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light

And once the ties with the crown had been broken
Westward in saddle and wagon it went
And 'til the railroad linked ocean to ocean
Many the lives which had come to an end
While we bullied, stole and bought our a homeland
We began the slaughter of the red man

But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light

The blue and grey they stomped it
They kicked it just like a dog
And when the war over
They stuffed it just like a hog

And though the past has it's share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But it's protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it's a monster and will not obey

(Suicide)
The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'

Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching

(America)
America where are you now?
Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster

© Copyright MCA Music (BMI)
All rights for the USA controlled and administered by
MCA Corporation of America, INC

From the 1970 release "Monster" 
Words and music by John Kay, Jerry Edmonton, Nick St. Nicholas and Larry Byrom

Sometime before Barack Obama became the flavor of the month in last year's primary election, a white friend opined that Obama would have a difficult time appealing to enough white people to get the nomination (a calculus that had some currency but was nonetheless disproved in time). Another friend, an African American, responded that he might have even more trouble garnering black votes because, "Obama may be an African American, but he's really not black." When pressed for elaboration, he responded with pretty much the same argument found here in this comment on a Salon editorial: Obama's blackness is informed not so much by a shared history of other blacks, but observations of their experiences.... he is not the descendant of former slaves. He did not grow up listening to the stories of at least one side of his family passing down the history of the enslavement, lynching, and oppression of his forefathers and mothers. He is unique, in that his father was from Africa who did well, married a white woman and raised in general affluence. He has no relatives that were lynched or died at the hands of police choke holds. No cousins or brothers are sitting in prison for drug or violence related offenses.

Tichy's premise seems to ring true as we observe how Obama tends to skitter away from the issue of race and takes a less confrontational, less authentically black tack. Yet, as both Carter, Walsh and Tichy conclude, race is something with which Obama will have to grapple if he is ever going to make any progress on the social issues which comprise his political agenda. The question is: is our first multicultural president (as Tichy describes Obama) the right man to handle the dog whistles and the appeals to our history's coarser nature? Is his approach of making white America feel less uncomfortable about race and its unsavory role in American life an honest, courageous means of confronting an issue that won't just go away regardless of how many generations wander in the desert? Or is he just "kicking it down the road" for the first really Black president to finally address? Paraphrasing A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. to Clarence Thomas, is Obama black enough to be not just post-racial, but really anti-racist?

Yesterday, The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve wondered:

"How many more murderous rampages by enraged rightists--whether executed or merely in the planning stage--are we going to have to endure before the traditional media is willing to acknowledge and address the obvious?  How many people are going to die, and how highly placed will the victims have to be, before someone connects the dots and starts calling out the ever more violent, hateful and apocalyptic rhetoric of the likes of Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly, Hannity and Savage as bearing some responsibility for creating this climate of insanity? "

I'm not certain if we're beginning to see the MSM arouse from its recession-induced navel gazing, but I did find some hopeful signs that at least some quarters are becoming atuned to the ugly reality that is the temperament of current American politics. First, there's this AP story that notes the correspondence between the Holocaust Museum shooting and the upswing in activity among fanatic right wing extremist groups. Second, another AP piece shows that at least the folks in Connecticut are getting serious about bloggers who are inciting violence: apparently Hal Turner has a history of telling folks who read his blog who should live and who should die. Interestingly, he apparently wanted CT Catholics to do the CT legislators in.

I'm wondering if these two pieces are indications that long overdue attention to the dangerous extreme right will finally be pulled out of the deep, dark recesses of the MSM's consciousness, or OTOH they're just temporary blips on the radar. I haven't enough clairvoyance to be able to say for sure, but here's what I'm going to do nonetheless: I'm finally going to make use of RSS technology to follow the CT story to its conclusion. I have no faith in today's media to be able to stay focused on critical issues like these and provide the kind of coverage that shines the bright light of scrutiny needed to keep these very dangerous atavists at bay. Like NCSteve, I hope to be proven wrong.

While sewing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Sarah Palin and her bid to be a heartbeat away from being President .

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Palin is a post turtle."

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.

The old rancher said, "When you're  driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. "You know she didn't get up there by herself; she doesn't belong up there; she doesn't know what to do while she is up there; and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put her up there to begin with."

To the  citizens of the United States  of America, from Her  Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

In light of  your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for  President of the USA, and thus to  govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your  independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen  Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states,  commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy). 

Your new Prime Minister,  Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further  elections.

Congress and the Senate will  be disbanded. 

A questionnaire may be  circulated, next year, to determine whether any of you  noticed. 

To aid in the transition to a  British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with  immediate effect:
  (You should look up  'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

1. Then look up aluminium,  and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just  how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

2. The letter 'U' will be  reinstated in words such as 'colour', 'favour', 'labour' and  'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without  skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by  the suffix '-ise'. Generally, you will be expected to raise your  vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary'). 

3. Using the same twenty-seven  words interspersed with filler noises such as 'like' and 'you know'  is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is  no such thing as US English. We will let M*crosoft know on your  behalf. The M*crosoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into  account the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of  -ize. 

4. July 4th will no longer be  celebrated as a holiday.

5. You will learn to resolve  personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact  that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not  quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting  grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or  speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse. 

6. Therefore, you will no  longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a  vegetable peeler. (Although a permit will be required if you  wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.)

7. All intersections will be  replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left  side, with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric,  with immediate effect, and without the benefit of conversion  tables.  Both roundabouts and metrication will  help you understand the British sense of humour.

8. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you  have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to  it.

9. You will learn to make real  chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and  those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called  crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed  not with catsup but with vinegar.

10. The cold tasteless stuff  you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth,  only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European  brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager.  South African beer is also acceptable, as they are pound for pound  the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the  beer. They are also part of British  Commonwealth -  see what it did for them.  American brands will be  referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold  without risk of further confusion.

11. Hollywood will be required occasionally  to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast  English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell  attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was  an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese  grater. 

12. You will cease playing  American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you  call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed  to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but  does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing  full kevlar body armour, like a bunch of nancies).

13. Further, you will stop  playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the  World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are  aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is  understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the  South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries. 

14. You must tell us who  killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

15. An internal revenue agent  (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you  shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to  1776). 

16. Daily Tea Time begins  promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs,  with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries  (with cream) when in season.

God Save the  Queen!  

I as posted here, like Missouri there are 18 other states that have pending legislation that could potentially disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens. The Brennan Center for Justice has documented all 19 bills that could have far reaching effects on the outcome of the 2008 General Election. If you live in one of these states (CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, MD, MA, MI, MO, MS, NY, OK, SC, TN, UT, VA, WA) you need to immediately get involved at the local level to make sure these bills do not pass. In most cases, the documents needed for proof of citizenship are not clearly defined.

If you don't think that these bills present a problem to the democratic process, consider what happened to tens of thousands of people in Missouri who lost their Medicaid benefits because they were unable to document their citizenship (see http://www.cbpp.org/5-15-08citdoc.htm).

No state is immune: blue states like MA and NY are facing the same kind of patriotic jingoism as red states like MS and OK. I don't know enough about each state to know if this is a Republican tactic, but I can't think of any other party that would benefit from lower election turnout in this cycle, especially if you consider the massive participation numbers of the primaries.

The point is this: these are quiet, backdoor end runs that are seeking to shut out eligible voters. If we (and yes, I'm in one of these states) sit back and let it happen, we have no one but ourselves to blame. If you live in one of these 19 states, GET BUSY AND CALL YOUR REPS! If you live somewhere else, keep your ears to the ground and your eyes on the capital: you can bet good money that a similar proposal is headed your way.

(Please rec this so that it makes it out to the front page where more people can see it -- this is VERY IMPORTANT!)

Rural, Low-Income, and African American Residents Among Most Affected

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Missouri’s legislature is considering a constitutional amendment permitting the state to require residents to provide documentary proof of their U.S. citizenship in order to vote.  If implemented, it risks disenfranchising large numbers of Missouri residents who are U.S. citizens....
the estimated 238,000 Missourians who lack these documents would include:

• more than 90,000 rural residents;

• 70,000 low-income residents;

• 50,000 residents without a high school diploma;

• 50,000 elderly residents; and

• 40,000 African Americans.
  
  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  
  According to my source, this is just the tip of the iceberg: 18 other states are planning or are initiating similar action. I am trying to get more information from CBPP on this.

Here's an interesting proposition: what if the SD's give the nomination to Clinton even though Obama leads in all metrics. In November, will African Americans sit on their hands and stay home....

....or will they turn out in record numbers to vote <B>against</b> the Democrat party 1) for disenfranchising them in massive numbers; 2) for taking them for granted; and 3) to stick it to Clinton for spite? Consider, not only would they vote against Clinton but also against every downticket Democrat as a message that betrayal is not something that goes down easy for people who've been jerked around for hundreds of years.

Think it couldn't / wouldn't happen? Why or why not?

I didn't think it was possible, but even though John McCain is practically a political siamese twin to the most unpopular president since Herbert Hoover, it's looking more and more like he's going to win in November regardless of who the Democrat nominee is. According to the latest AP polling, upwards of 40% of Democrats are either sitting out the general or are voting for McCain due to their dislike of their supported candidate's opponent. Simply put, a huge number of Clinton supporters won't get behind Obama, and vice versa.

Who's to blame? Doesn't matter: laying blame isn't going to salve anyone's wounded feelings. How to fix it is the Democrats' larger concern and they better find the solution P.D.Q. or else, as Jeffrey Toobin said yesterday, "take up Art History" -- if they lose this one, they become entirely irrelevant and a has-been party.

Says EastWest, “97% of black Democrats are voting for Obama. 3 percent are voting for Clinton. Yep. Nothing racist about that.” Of course, the implication is that such a large percentage of African Americans (AA’s) voting for an AA candidate is prima facie racism. Before one could agree or disagree with that, one would have to know how EastWest defines racism. Since (s)he offers no definition, one could presume that EastWest is going by a commonly accepted, perhaps dictionary, definition such as: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others; hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Given that definition and its attendant connotations, you could surmise that EastWest believes that AA’s are voting for Barack Obama because he is also AA and therefore superior to Hillary Clinton because of race and/or AA’s are intolerant of European Americans (EA’s).

To analyze EastWest’s argument’s validity, you would have to poll every AA voter who voted for Obama and categorize his/her reason for such a vote as racist or not. Since such a poll hasn’t been conducted, you could either accept the argument at face value or dismiss it as unproven. In either case, its validity is undetermined. Nonetheless, it would be imprudent to dismiss it outright since it seems to have some resonance among various political thinkers this campaign season, and among a fair number of Clinton supporters in particular. I wonder why that is. Prior to this year’s primaries, you usually heard this type of argument coming from Republican mouths: “AA’s vote as a [monolithic] block for the Democrat.” “Democrats practice group politics -- look at AA’s and how they consistently vote in such high numbers for Democrats.” These statements are pretty much true, and the reasons are fairly simple: the Democrat party was the party that championed civil rights in the 1960’s. When AA’s finally got the practical right to vote (nearly 100 years after getting the legal right), they returned the favor by supporting those who supported them. The Democrat party has since embraced AA interests in most policy agenda, and has actively sought to include and empower AA’s within the party ranks.

Given the history, it’s not surprising that Clinton felt that she could count on the AA vote, what with her and her husband’s past support of AA interests, and the friendships and alliances that she’s cultivated with AA’s. So when AA voters abandoned Clinton after they perceived that her camp “played the race card,” Clinton supporters felt betrayed and attributed the migration to the Obama camp to racial/racist motives. But was the migration indeed race-based?

As with all of the hot button topics, the question is much more nuanced than one would presume. I suspect that it would be easier to understand current AA voting behavior if one thinks not in terms of race, but rather ethnicity. Race is a very simplistic, broad brush that glosses over and hides the subtleties that comprise and differentiate American social groups. Mainstream politics and the MSM would have us think in terms of black and white, which do no justice to describing the complex of communities and their varying interests that live in this country. If one thinks in terms of ethnicity, then a more granular, albeit complicated, model emerges. However, it is a model that better serves our understanding of why so many AA’s are breaking for Obama right now.

Most ethnic groups that have come to America have assimilated fairly easily in a relatively short period of time. Of all of these ethnic groups however, AA’s were the one that were brought here specifically because they could not easily assimilate into mainstream European society. Keep in mind, the first slaves in America were Native Americans, but because escapees were able to blend in with the larger Native American populations, it became impractical to enslave them. The next slave group was poor Europeans, the indentured “servant”; when these people escaped, they easily blended into the freemen population. It wasn’t long before dark skinned Africans became the population of choice for enslavement. When they ran away, it was pretty easy to pick them out in a lineup, so to speak. Assimilation into the larger society remained prohibitive even after emancipation. Even free AA’s before emancipation were forced to live together whether they want to or not. “Separate & Unequal” was not a postbellum invention of Jim Crow. So, what is the natural reaction of a minority group facing hostility, repression, and intolerance from the majority group? They band together for mutual support, comfort, and protection. They take care of each other; they promote each other.

African Americans have had this psychology beaten into them for well over 300 years. It is a mindset of any minority group, one that isn’t outgrown in 40 years. While AA’s are able to enter the mainstream more easily, racism (that 18th century pseudo-scientific construct) clearly remains active, and trust doesn’t come easily to those who can still be harmed. So when the Clintons were perceived as having played the race card (and I’m not here to confirm or deny that allegation) by AA voters, many of them apparently did what 300 years of abuse and exclusion taught them to do: they formed ranks behind one of their own. They saw the political game being played and their ethnicity being devalued. In response, they coalesced in solidarity to promote someone who is like them, who won’t use their ethnicity as a boogeyman (to drive unenlightened voters into his camp), someone who has a keener understanding of their condition and their history, and who can imbue in them a sense of pride and hope that they won’t be taken for granted in the usual political paradigm.

Now, clearly not all AA’s believe in Obama. Some still support Clinton, and even a few are supporting McCain for reasons that only they can explain. It is also true that many AA Obama supporters were in his camp long before the SC primary; their reasons for supporting him were often the same as any EA supporter’s reasons. However, it is ridiculous to describe an ethnic voting pattern as “racist.” When an ethnic group votes to support someone who may or may not be of the same ethnicity, but who has historically benefitted that group, it is not a racially based decision (one made out of hatred or superiority). When AA support was heavily in favor of Clinton, only the Republicans thought anything racial was involved. AA’s left the Clinton camp when they perceived that they were being taken for granted and thought of as expendable. It was only natural that those so alienated would seek to support another candidate. This time, they had an option to support one of their own ethnic kinsmen.