I haven't blogged much lately. I really didn't have much to say about Sarah Palin. She was a political mystery, until now. What we are finding out is Palin is no more a maverick than John McCain. Yes, she cleaned up some corruption in Alaska Government, but she brought in her own bunch of unqualified cronies. She set up an administration that mirrors Bush's. Her administration uses personal emails to conduct business secretly, it engages in punishing opposition, it demands loyalty, and it covers up to avoid accountability.
McCain's choice shows he wasn't looking for a serious female running mate. Palin energizes the base, but is really alienating independents and Democratic Women. Is Palin what McCain thinks of Hilary? Why is McCain protecting Palin from taking questions? She's not ready for anything, but going back to AK and facing the music.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Neil Cavuto is an ASS
The goal in Washington must be to never have to say "I'm Sorry". Republicans have screamed for years about reducing the burden on businesses (Regulation). They got it. They got greedy executives what they wanted, and what logically followed was unchecked bad business practices that caused many of these Investment Banks to tank. Are Republicans saying "Oooops, didn't see that coming"? No, they're trying a tried and true method of distraction- they're blaming minorities!!
Neil Cavuto went on air and stated that the problem was banks lending to minorities and risky people. Yes, Cavuto said that non-Whites are to blame for this crisis! Cavuto forgets that US banks have a long history of not loaning money to minorities.
Neil Cavuto went on air and stated that the problem was banks lending to minorities and risky people. Yes, Cavuto said that non-Whites are to blame for this crisis! Cavuto forgets that US banks have a long history of not loaning money to minorities.
Damn, pt 2
I posted about deregulation here. I guess I was right. Phil Gramm coauthored a bill that allowed Investment Banks to do things that they had not been allowed to do since the Depression. Phil Gramm then left the Senate, and started working for UBS's US Division. Phil created a job for himself, and then turned around and said this recesion was all mental and tat Americans were whiners.
Hey Phil, can you say Chickens coming home to roost? Phil gutted the laws that protected us, the Fed did nothing to tighten oversight, and the Banks ran wild. Sub-prime lenders were funded by large banks- that's a fact that many ignored. The Sub-primes were proxies for big banks- sucking cash out of people that the big banks wouldn't touch. Then the big banks bought those overpriced loans. Now, you have to be kind of dumb to accept an interest-only loan. As the name implies, you are only paying the interest every month, which means you have no equity in your home. The only way of getting equity is for the value of the house to rise. To me, that is real estate speculation.
Hey Phil, can you say Chickens coming home to roost? Phil gutted the laws that protected us, the Fed did nothing to tighten oversight, and the Banks ran wild. Sub-prime lenders were funded by large banks- that's a fact that many ignored. The Sub-primes were proxies for big banks- sucking cash out of people that the big banks wouldn't touch. Then the big banks bought those overpriced loans. Now, you have to be kind of dumb to accept an interest-only loan. As the name implies, you are only paying the interest every month, which means you have no equity in your home. The only way of getting equity is for the value of the house to rise. To me, that is real estate speculation.
Damn
Last Monday, we awoke to a crashing Market and failing Investment banks. According to Chris Matthews, Americans lost ONE TRILLION DOLLARS that day! We saw the Bush Economy is really about.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Calling him out
The ladies of the view have managed to do something that no one else has done- they called out McCain to his face. The ladies confronted Senator McCain- asking him why he has chosen to distort Obama's record. McCain has no real answer- telling the truth at this point would kill his campaign. Joy Beier was leading the way, but even Barbara Walters got into the act when McCain tried lying his way out of it.
500,000 new reasons
For the month of August, Obama raised $66M!! In addition, he picked up 500,000 new contributors.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Campaign Financing, revisited
I had one or two other points to make in this area, but time and circumstances intervened. Looking back, I regret not making time to finish this series of posts. The Republicans have gotten their act together on the message front, and are trying to steal the change message AND paint Obama as an elitist traitor that hates his country.
Yes, Obama took a public hit for not going with Public Financing, but this candidate has close to 2Million contributors! I think 2,000,000 Americans giving something under $120 each is a great example of the public financing a campaign. I understand that means less than 1% of Americans have contributed to the Obama Campaign, but that <1% represents a record RECORD number of contributors to a campaign.
Yes, Obama took a public hit for not going with Public Financing, but this candidate has close to 2Million contributors! I think 2,000,000 Americans giving something under $120 each is a great example of the public financing a campaign. I understand that means less than 1% of Americans have contributed to the Obama Campaign, but that <1% represents a record RECORD number of contributors to a campaign.
Back in the Saddle again
Well, it has been quite a ride the last three months. In short, I got a job offer that was a bit of a gamble, but one that has a HUGE upside for myself and the family. I'll chronicle some of the ups and downs since last I blogged, but professionally, I'm feeling it big time- swagger.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Campaign Financing, part 5- Message Discipline
Just today, Charlie Black, McCain adviser, was quoted in Fortune Magazine as basically saying that another terrorist attack on American soil is good for McCain. He also said that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was tragic, but it was good because McCain was able to discuss foreign policy- his strength. Later, McCain said 1) he couldn't imagine Black saying these things, and 2)whatever he said was probably taken out of context. A McCain aide said Black never said those things, and Black said he didn't remember saying those things, but apologized if he did.
The above is an example of a campaign mot really getting it- not understanding that words do matter. Charlie Black- yes the same Charlie Black that lobbied for the Enron Loophole, is trying to press fear. The typical Republican tactic of fear is being combined with the Southern Strategy- they want to scare us with the specter of a closeted BLACK Muslim, whose wife is an angry BLACK woman, sitting in the seat of US power, welcoming terrorist in to attack us.
The above is an example of a campaign mot really getting it- not understanding that words do matter. Charlie Black- yes the same Charlie Black that lobbied for the Enron Loophole, is trying to press fear. The typical Republican tactic of fear is being combined with the Southern Strategy- they want to scare us with the specter of a closeted BLACK Muslim, whose wife is an angry BLACK woman, sitting in the seat of US power, welcoming terrorist in to attack us.
Campaign Financing, part 4- Family Matters
Like Hilary Clinton, the GOP was hoping that Tony Rezko's trial would produce evidence of Obama hanging with a corrupt fundraiser. There has been no evidence that Obama has even remotely been connected to crooked people that way McCain has. The Obama-is-a-Muslim smear campaign flies in the face of the Rev Wright guilt-by-association one. What's left?
Attack the wife. Michelle is an unpatriotic angry black woman.
Attack the wife. Michelle is an unpatriotic angry black woman.
Campaign Financing, part 3- Love and Pride
Michelle Obama is painted as unpatriotic. Her offense is saying that for the first time in her adult life, she is really proud of her country. By leaving out the word really, the Right is seeking to smear Michelle and Barack simultaneously. Barack Obama should not be president because Michelle Obama hates America!
I have wanted to blog on this topic for some time. The fact that the Right continues to bring this smear up- free of any historic context. One Sunday morning I was listening to a public affairs program out of a Chicago radio station. On the program, a guest referred to the situation with Mrs Obama and said that African Americans have loved America long before they were proud of it. This refers to African American service to America (love) while still being mistreated. The guest referred to the treatment of German POWs during WWII as an example.
African Americans have served in every major conflict in this country's history. In some cases, African Americans had fight for the right to fight for America (let that marinade in your brain for a minute). Whether it was the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI or WWII, the result was the same- segregated units fighting to keep this country free. These soldiers loved this country, they fought and died for this country, and after the war was over, they had to come home to a country that refused to see them as equals.
During WWII, thousands of German and Italian POWs were brought to the United States, because Europe was devastated. These POWs were housed in over 500 camps around the US. Because of the labor shortage, many of them worked on local farms, businesses and industries. These POWs were eventually treated as members of the communities they worked in. In fact, it was not uncommon that these German POWs were afforded better treatment than African American Soldiers. Now think about it- a German Prisoner of War could walk into the front door of a Southern store- that same store an African American soldier would have to enter from a back door!
The radio guest talked about the love African Americans have had for America- even when America didn't show them love.
I too have been very proud of America this campaign season. To its credit, 36M Americans looked past gender and race to vote for Clinton and Obama. There is a reason to be proud of a country that just 50 years ago allowed people to be denied the right to vote because of their race.
Whoopi Goldberg mentioned the whole flap over Michelle Obama's lack of pride by mentioning that people understand what Obama meant. She went further to call out pundits for taking that quote of out of context. Hell, even Laura Bush defended Michelle Obama.
African Americans have to love this country- our parents, grandparents and numerous generations before us, endured slavery, Jim Crow, lynching and government-sanctioned discrimination. We voted for an African American as a presidential nominee, and will have the chance to vote for him to be the next president! That is a huge source of pride in a country we love.
Did I mention that Dan Abrams found video of John McCain saying he didn't love America until he was denied her company. At another campaign stop, he said to an attendee that he understood how the gentleman could find it hard to be proud of America. These statements by McCain will not stop the Right from attacking Michelle, while ignoring McCain's comments.
I have wanted to blog on this topic for some time. The fact that the Right continues to bring this smear up- free of any historic context. One Sunday morning I was listening to a public affairs program out of a Chicago radio station. On the program, a guest referred to the situation with Mrs Obama and said that African Americans have loved America long before they were proud of it. This refers to African American service to America (love) while still being mistreated. The guest referred to the treatment of German POWs during WWII as an example.
African Americans have served in every major conflict in this country's history. In some cases, African Americans had fight for the right to fight for America (let that marinade in your brain for a minute). Whether it was the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI or WWII, the result was the same- segregated units fighting to keep this country free. These soldiers loved this country, they fought and died for this country, and after the war was over, they had to come home to a country that refused to see them as equals.
During WWII, thousands of German and Italian POWs were brought to the United States, because Europe was devastated. These POWs were housed in over 500 camps around the US. Because of the labor shortage, many of them worked on local farms, businesses and industries. These POWs were eventually treated as members of the communities they worked in. In fact, it was not uncommon that these German POWs were afforded better treatment than African American Soldiers. Now think about it- a German Prisoner of War could walk into the front door of a Southern store- that same store an African American soldier would have to enter from a back door!
The radio guest talked about the love African Americans have had for America- even when America didn't show them love.
I too have been very proud of America this campaign season. To its credit, 36M Americans looked past gender and race to vote for Clinton and Obama. There is a reason to be proud of a country that just 50 years ago allowed people to be denied the right to vote because of their race.
Whoopi Goldberg mentioned the whole flap over Michelle Obama's lack of pride by mentioning that people understand what Obama meant. She went further to call out pundits for taking that quote of out of context. Hell, even Laura Bush defended Michelle Obama.
African Americans have to love this country- our parents, grandparents and numerous generations before us, endured slavery, Jim Crow, lynching and government-sanctioned discrimination. We voted for an African American as a presidential nominee, and will have the chance to vote for him to be the next president! That is a huge source of pride in a country we love.
Did I mention that Dan Abrams found video of John McCain saying he didn't love America until he was denied her company. At another campaign stop, he said to an attendee that he understood how the gentleman could find it hard to be proud of America. These statements by McCain will not stop the Right from attacking Michelle, while ignoring McCain's comments.
Campaign Financing, part 2- Becoming Party Leader
In what I think got little media attention, Sen. Obama became not only the the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, he also told the rest of the party to close down the 527s. MoveOn decided to respond. Obama is working closely with the DNC to make sure that this campaign is not going to be bullied like Kerry or Gore. The piece that I believe is being missed is Obama taking control of the Democratic Party, and the party responding.
Do we see McCain doing the same? The short answer is no. The longer, more qualified answer is McCain has decided to lead by not leading. McCain is taking a very safe position- by no trying to lead his party, Sen. John McCain does not risk looking weak if he tells the Tennessee GOP not to run ads against Michelle Obama, and they do it anyway. He doesn't look weak if he tells the North Carolina GOP not to run smear ads against Barack Obama and they do it anyway. Mostly, by not taking control, McCain frees up the seediest parts of the the Party and their surrogates (Limbaugh and etc) to tee off on Obama and not have to worry about having to be held accountable for their lies and smears.
Do we see McCain doing the same? The short answer is no. The longer, more qualified answer is McCain has decided to lead by not leading. McCain is taking a very safe position- by no trying to lead his party, Sen. John McCain does not risk looking weak if he tells the Tennessee GOP not to run ads against Michelle Obama, and they do it anyway. He doesn't look weak if he tells the North Carolina GOP not to run smear ads against Barack Obama and they do it anyway. Mostly, by not taking control, McCain frees up the seediest parts of the the Party and their surrogates (Limbaugh and etc) to tee off on Obama and not have to worry about having to be held accountable for their lies and smears.
Campaign Financing, part 1- Getting the story right
Last week, Obama's campaign announced it would opt out of public financing. Keith Olbermann covered the story on Countdown. Olbermann has noted on more than one occasion that 1) Obama was one of TWO candidates in 2007 to respond a survey that included a question on campaign financing, 2) Obama responded "yes" to accepting public financing, and 3) Obama's responses was very detailed AND qualified- Obama would opt in to public financing under some very specific conditions.
Dan Abrams' show is on right after Countdown, and often has one or two segments on the same stories. Abrams, unlike Olbermann, fails to mention Obama's qualified answer to opting in to public financing. To Abrams, the fact that Obama checked the "yes" box on that question is enough to call his decision to opt out a flipflop. Abrams' position is surprising, but not shocking. Dan truly nailed the Supreme Court's latest decisionon Gitmo detainees (restoring habeas corpus). If you aren't sure about habeas- follow the link. The Verdict is advertised as a political show with stories viewed through the eyes of a lawyer, so I am a little disappointed that Abrams is acting so obtuse.
Back to public financing- I've been thinking about why if feel as I do about this decision, and I want to use the next few posts to lay out a case for the Obama Campaign's decision.
Dan Abrams' show is on right after Countdown, and often has one or two segments on the same stories. Abrams, unlike Olbermann, fails to mention Obama's qualified answer to opting in to public financing. To Abrams, the fact that Obama checked the "yes" box on that question is enough to call his decision to opt out a flipflop. Abrams' position is surprising, but not shocking. Dan truly nailed the Supreme Court's latest decisionon Gitmo detainees (restoring habeas corpus). If you aren't sure about habeas- follow the link. The Verdict is advertised as a political show with stories viewed through the eyes of a lawyer, so I am a little disappointed that Abrams is acting so obtuse.
Back to public financing- I've been thinking about why if feel as I do about this decision, and I want to use the next few posts to lay out a case for the Obama Campaign's decision.
Friday, June 13, 2008
How NOT to pick a VP
Dan Abrams seems to be obsessed with the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket. It seems that Dan devotes at least part of one segment per show talking up the idea of the dream ticket. Now Republicans would love that ticket as it would allow them to attack on several fronts. The GOP would be able to criticize Obama as not being for change by having one of the most well-connected politicians as a running mate. Bill Clinton would as be a target- not just for past sins, but the financing of his library. Plus, there's all those years of Hillary and Bill hate that's been stored up.
Dan and many of his guests tend to make the case for Hillary as VP. The argument that seems to be the most bizarre is that Hillary is the runner-up in the process. Since when does the Nominee have to accept the second place finisher as VP? Does McCain have to accept the runner-up from the Republican Primary as his VP?
Dan and many of his guests tend to make the case for Hillary as VP. The argument that seems to be the most bizarre is that Hillary is the runner-up in the process. Since when does the Nominee have to accept the second place finisher as VP? Does McCain have to accept the runner-up from the Republican Primary as his VP?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Tanya Acker is my damn hero, pt 3- HE'S EXOTIC!!!
Pat Buchanan was on The Verdict with Dan Abrams. In addressing the GOP strategy that seems to be attacking Barack Obama by demonizing his wife, Pat talked about the legitimacy of attacking Michelle AND painting Obama as EXOTIC.
Tanya Acker was on the case and tried to pin Pat down on what exotic means. She called out Pat for using Exotic as code for Black. The GOP is going to continue to use code words and dog whistles to energize that portion of their base. What used to be a Southern Strategy is going to be the GOP 50 State Strategy.
The real problem is the GOP has no desire to run a campaign on the issues that affect you and I every day, issues that are crucial to our country. Issues that transcend race and geography.
Tanya Acker was on the case and tried to pin Pat down on what exotic means. She called out Pat for using Exotic as code for Black. The GOP is going to continue to use code words and dog whistles to energize that portion of their base. What used to be a Southern Strategy is going to be the GOP 50 State Strategy.
The real problem is the GOP has no desire to run a campaign on the issues that affect you and I every day, issues that are crucial to our country. Issues that transcend race and geography.
Graceful Exit
I watched Hillary Clinton's announcement that she was suspending her campaign and endorsing Barack Obama. Some people have criticized her speech as self-centered- to much about her (using their words). I think the Senator struck a good balance- trying to move from the position of a candidate from a candidate for president to former candidate endorsing a rival. She did move from her positions and issues to saying that the differences between her and Obama were trivial in comparison to those of Obama and McCain.
The only thing that Hillary could have done differently, would be to frame the importance of voting for Obama instead of McCain. Some Clinton supporters have vowed to vote for McCain in opposition to an Obama run. I think as some others do that once we see where McCain stands on key issues, voting for him will be a serious vote against self interest.
The only thing that Hillary could have done differently, would be to frame the importance of voting for Obama instead of McCain. Some Clinton supporters have vowed to vote for McCain in opposition to an Obama run. I think as some others do that once we see where McCain stands on key issues, voting for him will be a serious vote against self interest.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Joe ain't cool
That's a Peanuts reference. Joe Lieberman was not supported by Barack Obama in his reelection bid for the Senate. Like so many others, Obama got baheind Ned Lamont. Lieberman manged to win as an Independent and is taking his shots at Obama. Lieberman got on a conference call with reporters and blasted Obama's Israel Policy. Most importantly, Lieberman admitted he didn't read, see or hear Obama's speech. He was smart enough not to criticize the speech exactly, but the whole idea of talking to Iran while the government there still supports the idea of wiping Israel off the map. Again, more fear and smear- Republican style. Lieberman has crossed the line. He caucused with the Democrats, but has made the decision early to actively campaign for McCain.
Lieberman has that right to support McCain, but not in this fashion. To make the point, Lieberman supposedly authored an email fund-raising for McCain, calling his old party the "Democrat Party". That has been an intentional Republican smear for some time- referring to the Democrtic Party as the Democrat Party. I expect such grammatical slips and smears from George Nucular Bush, but not a former member of the party. For Lieberman to go so far, says that in January, Lieberman might just loose his Committee positions with the Democratic Caucus- please say its so Harry!
One of the knocks on Obama early on was he was soft. He couldn't deliver a shot. Well, Thursday, Obama pulled Lieberman off to the side of the Senate, and had words with him. We don't know what got said, but I guess we'll see how Lieberman behaves here on out.
AIPAC Attack
Both Obama and Clinton spoke at AIPAC and laid it down! Obama left no doubt that he supports Israel, and Hillary backed his statements. Both Hillary and Barack had at McCain. Hillary also stopped short of endorsing Obama as the nominee, but clearly supported him.
Full Court Press
Hillary supporters are putting on pressure. I'm not talking about those 18M voters, I talking about members of Congress. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Congresswoman from Florida and Clinton National Co-Chair, and the rest of the Florida Congressional delegation stepped up Wednesday morning and endorsed Obama.
By the evening, Charles Rangel hosted a conference call with the New York delegation and others (a total of 23 Senators and Congressional members) to discuss Hillary releasing them so they could endorse Obama. Rangel also advised Clinton to let go and suspend her campaign.
By the evening, Charles Rangel hosted a conference call with the New York delegation and others (a total of 23 Senators and Congressional members) to discuss Hillary releasing them so they could endorse Obama. Rangel also advised Clinton to let go and suspend her campaign.
Wednesday, but not Hump Day
The day after, many were questioning Hillary Clinton's non-concession speech. Was she trying to hold her 18M voters as a bargaining chip? Hilary Rosen at Huffingtonpost wrote a piece saying that she was not a bargaining chip, not to be controlled to get Hillary what she wanted.
McCain is happy as hell because there is a rift in the Democratic Party that he thinks he can exploit.
McCain is happy as hell because there is a rift in the Democratic Party that he thinks he can exploit.
Tuesday Speechifying, Part 3
Grabbed this image from Time Magazine!Just as McCain made a strategic move, Obama made his own. Obama booked the Excelon Center in St Paul, MN. This is the site of the 2008 Republican Convention. Obama sent a message- there is no place where Republicans can think is safe in this campaign. The crowd was wound-up and roaring long before the scheduled speech. Sen Amy Klobuchar was there speaking to MSNBC and the crowd went wild! This venue is very public, big, and open. The Video Screens were on and obviously tuned to the political coverage. The estimates were 17,000 people in the the building and 15,000 outside- 32,000 people attended this speech!!
Obama praised Clinton, acknowledged the hard-fought contest and declared himself the nominee! Obama attacked McCain, but mostly, he praised his voters and let them know that this is their victory, this their time, and this is the time to march to victory and the White House.
Tuesday Speechifying, Part 2
Hillary Clinton gave her speech Tuesday Night at Baruch College in NYC. The speech was in the Bear Den- two levels beyond the basement at that college- no Cell Service, no Television Screens, and no contact with the outside world. I felt like this venue was a bunker, and symbolized the mentality of the Clinton Campaign. She fought a epic battle with Obama, but made grave mistakes in strategy that eventually caused her to loose, but she refused to accept that inevitability of the loss.
In contrast to the McCain venue, the Clinton venue was big, and FILLED to the rafters with supporters. The enthusiasm of Clinton supporters was highly charged- these folks were energized and fully behind Clinton. The bunker mentality continued when Terry McCauliff introduced Clinton has the next President of the United States.
Hillary acknowledged her supporters, the 18M votes, the issues that she feels strongly about. Clinton did not acknowledge Obama's securing the nomination. She went so far as to acknowledge that people want to know what she wants, and then didn't answer. She decided to do nothing Tuesday Night. That in and of itself was fine, but I believe she crossed a line when she asked supporters to leave their ideas at her website.
In contrast to the McCain venue, the Clinton venue was big, and FILLED to the rafters with supporters. The enthusiasm of Clinton supporters was highly charged- these folks were energized and fully behind Clinton. The bunker mentality continued when Terry McCauliff introduced Clinton has the next President of the United States.
Hillary acknowledged her supporters, the 18M votes, the issues that she feels strongly about. Clinton did not acknowledge Obama's securing the nomination. She went so far as to acknowledge that people want to know what she wants, and then didn't answer. She decided to do nothing Tuesday Night. That in and of itself was fine, but I believe she crossed a line when she asked supporters to leave their ideas at her website.
Tuesday Speechifying
I know speechifying isn't a word, but it accurately describes the THREE speeches delivered after Tuesdays Democratic Primaries. John McCain wanted to strike first- speaking before the South Dakota Polls closed. Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak after South Dakota. Barack Obama spoke after the Montana Polls closed.
The first thing that struck me about McCain's speech was his decision to speak Tuesday Night. The pundits were billing this speech as a prebuttal to Obama's declaration of Democratic nominee. For weeks, Obama and Clinton have been hammering a potential McCain Presidency as a third term of Bush. McCain wanted the opportunity to frame the coming contest between him and Obama- a very smooth move. While listening to McCain, it became very clear, very fast that the McCain event was in a small room. To me, this is an example of the Republicans still not fully accepting and getting energized by a McCain candidacy. McCain seemed stiff. His speech was classic Rove- trying to hang his own weaknesses on Obama. McCain is trying not to repeat Hillary's mistake of trying to fight a message of change. The message of change resonates with voters more than experience- we're all wore out from the last eight years, and instead of seeing things improve, we're seeing increasing bad results of bad policies. McCain accepted change as a message, but his message of change is not all change is good- fear too much change. His message seems to be a perverse message that melds change with the typical Republican message of fear. "That's not change we can believe in," was McCain's mantra as he tried to draw clear distinctions between himself and Obama. What resulted was a speech that was weak, stiff, and must have included notes on when to smile. Overall, the speech was panned by everyone including Fox News.
The first thing that struck me about McCain's speech was his decision to speak Tuesday Night. The pundits were billing this speech as a prebuttal to Obama's declaration of Democratic nominee. For weeks, Obama and Clinton have been hammering a potential McCain Presidency as a third term of Bush. McCain wanted the opportunity to frame the coming contest between him and Obama- a very smooth move. While listening to McCain, it became very clear, very fast that the McCain event was in a small room. To me, this is an example of the Republicans still not fully accepting and getting energized by a McCain candidacy. McCain seemed stiff. His speech was classic Rove- trying to hang his own weaknesses on Obama. McCain is trying not to repeat Hillary's mistake of trying to fight a message of change. The message of change resonates with voters more than experience- we're all wore out from the last eight years, and instead of seeing things improve, we're seeing increasing bad results of bad policies. McCain accepted change as a message, but his message of change is not all change is good- fear too much change. His message seems to be a perverse message that melds change with the typical Republican message of fear. "That's not change we can believe in," was McCain's mantra as he tried to draw clear distinctions between himself and Obama. What resulted was a speech that was weak, stiff, and must have included notes on when to smile. Overall, the speech was panned by everyone including Fox News.
YES WE DID!!!!!
On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton won the South Dakota Primary.
Barack Obama won not only the Montana Primary by close to 30,000 votes, but also won the Democratic Nomination.
Let's be clear, this primary season has been historic- the first Female with a chance to win the nomination took the first African American Male to the end- each getting something around 18M votes each.
Superdelegates did what the party leaders demanded and got behind a candidate, and throughout the day Tuesday, superdelegates endorsed Obama. By the time the polls closed, the race was over. Obama only needed nine pledged delegates, and he had that from South Dakota.
This wasn't just a victory for African Americans, this is a victory for every American. It's the type of victory that is the fulfillment of the American Dream. You remember that dream that says anyone can achieve anything in America with hard work.
More on pride, speeches and etc in the next few posts..... but for now YES WE CAN is can be celebrated a YES WE DID. Yes, this is an early celebration, but it is tempered with the reality that Obama is only the Democratic Nominee.
Barack Obama won not only the Montana Primary by close to 30,000 votes, but also won the Democratic Nomination.
Let's be clear, this primary season has been historic- the first Female with a chance to win the nomination took the first African American Male to the end- each getting something around 18M votes each.
Superdelegates did what the party leaders demanded and got behind a candidate, and throughout the day Tuesday, superdelegates endorsed Obama. By the time the polls closed, the race was over. Obama only needed nine pledged delegates, and he had that from South Dakota.
This wasn't just a victory for African Americans, this is a victory for every American. It's the type of victory that is the fulfillment of the American Dream. You remember that dream that says anyone can achieve anything in America with hard work.
More on pride, speeches and etc in the next few posts..... but for now YES WE CAN is can be celebrated a YES WE DID. Yes, this is an early celebration, but it is tempered with the reality that Obama is only the Democratic Nominee.
Catch up time
I've been slow (again) in blogging this past week. I'll attempt to catch up before Sen. Clinton speaks ...
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
DNC Rules Meeting
Hilary Clinton was expecting to get it all on Saturday. She was expecting to get her way on Michigan and Florida. Both delegations were seated with a half vote per delegate. Hilary wanted to get her delegates, and Obama none, from Michigan. That didn't happen.
The problem with Florida and Michigan was not the fault of Clinton or Obama. It was the fault of the DNC Rules Committee. The Legislatures in those two states made the decision to defy the DNC rules and hold primaries too early. That any delegates from either state would be seated is progress.
The problem with Florida and Michigan was not the fault of Clinton or Obama. It was the fault of the DNC Rules Committee. The Legislatures in those two states made the decision to defy the DNC rules and hold primaries too early. That any delegates from either state would be seated is progress.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Supporting the Troops
This Memorial Day, I was thinking a lot about where we are as a country. We are a country because people were willing to take up arms to defend this land. The GI Bill (Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944) was written to provide educational or vocational training for WWII Servicemen. In addition to money for schooling, the GI Bill offered unemployment compensation for one year, low interest no down payment home loans amd low interest business loans. By 1947, universities like Michigan saw enrollments double or triple. That means the returning Servicemen took advantage of the GI Bill and educated themselves. In the last 60+ years, the education benefit has not kept pace with educational costs.
Senator Jim Webb has authored a bill to update the GI Bill (Webb-Hagel). Webb-Hagel is written to increase the educational benefit by approximately $50,000. The President is against it- say the new incentives will make it harder to retain personnel. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that retention of service personnel at the first reenlistment point will drop from 42% to 36%. This is what Bush and McCain have cited as a reason for not supporting the bill. But wait, the CBO also estimates a 16% increase in new high quality recruits.
The bill passed, but Bush will probably veto it, citing other spending attached to the bill. Even worse, you now have republican members of Congress and their media shills saying that the troops don't deserve full benefits because this is a volunteer force! As far as I am concerned, our service personnel deserve full educational benefits, full healthcare from providers of their choice, and guaranteed housing. They deserve the best equipment, best support services, best housing, and the best of everything. That is a lot, but so is what they sacrifice.
Senator Jim Webb has authored a bill to update the GI Bill (Webb-Hagel). Webb-Hagel is written to increase the educational benefit by approximately $50,000. The President is against it- say the new incentives will make it harder to retain personnel. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that retention of service personnel at the first reenlistment point will drop from 42% to 36%. This is what Bush and McCain have cited as a reason for not supporting the bill. But wait, the CBO also estimates a 16% increase in new high quality recruits.
The bill passed, but Bush will probably veto it, citing other spending attached to the bill. Even worse, you now have republican members of Congress and their media shills saying that the troops don't deserve full benefits because this is a volunteer force! As far as I am concerned, our service personnel deserve full educational benefits, full healthcare from providers of their choice, and guaranteed housing. They deserve the best equipment, best support services, best housing, and the best of everything. That is a lot, but so is what they sacrifice.
Investors' Nightmare??
Investor's Business Daily has an editorial about a possible nightmare scenario of a Democratic-controlled government. The gist is be afraid for the Democrats- they will nationalize the Oil Industry and regulate profits.
The editorial mentions the above examples of potential business-killing / profit-killing measures the Dems would offer up. It also mentions the possibly of Obama bullying American companies, ie- governmental interference in Business.
Regulation seems to be the bane of Business. In 2002, Enron rocked the world in unintended ways. It collapsed in stunning fashion, taking with it accounting firms, part of the Houston Real Estate Market, a California Governor, and about $4-6B dollars in illegal revenues. Enron churned and burned Electricity- selling and reselling power to drive up the price in California. To date, the State of California and its citizens have yet to be properly refunded money stolen. In 2003, some Mutual Funds were busted for allowing certain Hedge Funds and large investors to execute late trades and market timing. The bottom line is the small investor was cheated. Those of us that bought into the hype of regular, long-term investing lost out to short-term investors that , in some cases were allowed to pump money into and out of the fund some fast that they were able to claim some profits without ever really investing their own cash. In 2008, we are seeing the US Housing market crater. Unregulated/poorly regulated financial institutions sold mortgages that people couldn't afford, then bundled loans to hide the risk and sold them off. There are 2.2M potential foreclosures today, and the companies responsible for this mess are still fighting regulation.
The bottom line is business is not particularly good at self-regulation, and everyone pays for the failures.
The editorial mentions the above examples of potential business-killing / profit-killing measures the Dems would offer up. It also mentions the possibly of Obama bullying American companies, ie- governmental interference in Business.
Regulation seems to be the bane of Business. In 2002, Enron rocked the world in unintended ways. It collapsed in stunning fashion, taking with it accounting firms, part of the Houston Real Estate Market, a California Governor, and about $4-6B dollars in illegal revenues. Enron churned and burned Electricity- selling and reselling power to drive up the price in California. To date, the State of California and its citizens have yet to be properly refunded money stolen. In 2003, some Mutual Funds were busted for allowing certain Hedge Funds and large investors to execute late trades and market timing. The bottom line is the small investor was cheated. Those of us that bought into the hype of regular, long-term investing lost out to short-term investors that , in some cases were allowed to pump money into and out of the fund some fast that they were able to claim some profits without ever really investing their own cash. In 2008, we are seeing the US Housing market crater. Unregulated/poorly regulated financial institutions sold mortgages that people couldn't afford, then bundled loans to hide the risk and sold them off. There are 2.2M potential foreclosures today, and the companies responsible for this mess are still fighting regulation.
The bottom line is business is not particularly good at self-regulation, and everyone pays for the failures.
Tanya Acker is my damn hero, pt 2
I wanted to make clear the Reagan connection here. During Reagan's first run for the White House, he met with Farmers in Iowa and other states. This was during the Farm Crisis- family farms were going under left and right, and there seemed to be no help in sight. Not only were the farms going under, but the Agribusinesses associated with them were going under as well. Towns were dying.
Reagan won over Farmers by sympathizing with their plight. He promise to bring relief. Farmers voted for Reagan, helping put him over the top. Within months, the Department of Agriculture issued a statement declaring that Farming was a risky business like any other, then declared it would NOT take major steps to save Farmers. Farmers, like so many groups became Reagan Democrats by voting against their own self-interests. They then voted for him AGAIN in 1984.
This is a critical time in our country. John McCain is promising to continue some of the same policies that have put us in this mess. If Working Class Whites feel more comfortable voting for the traditional candidate (White, Male), then they will be voting against much needed change.
Reagan won over Farmers by sympathizing with their plight. He promise to bring relief. Farmers voted for Reagan, helping put him over the top. Within months, the Department of Agriculture issued a statement declaring that Farming was a risky business like any other, then declared it would NOT take major steps to save Farmers. Farmers, like so many groups became Reagan Democrats by voting against their own self-interests. They then voted for him AGAIN in 1984.
This is a critical time in our country. John McCain is promising to continue some of the same policies that have put us in this mess. If Working Class Whites feel more comfortable voting for the traditional candidate (White, Male), then they will be voting against much needed change.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Tanya Acker is my damn hero!!!
Tanya Acker often appears on Verdict with Dan Abrams. After the West Virgina Primary, Dan's panel was blasting Obama left and right over his perceived inability to connect with Working Class White voters. Never mind that Obama has won states like Iowa, Montana, and Vermont - all very White states, the narrative has become he doesn't connect- that feeds into the elitist smear.
I was watching Dan's show and was fuming. Just when I was ready to change the channel and catch a rerun of some random Football game on the NFL Network, Tanya spoke what was at the core of my anger with the discussion. To paraphrase, Tanya wondered how the rejection of Obama by West Virginians was Obama's problem. She went on to say that if West Virginians would be willing to go against their own self interests and vote for McCain, then they would get what they deserved. Tanya's words silenced the rest of the panel, and no one had a word in reply. Tanya's statements reminded me of part of a HBO special by Whoopie Goldberg. Whoopie talked about Reagan's courtship and betrayal of Iowa Farmers in the '80s.
If Obama is an Elitist that does not understand the Working Class, does a guy whose wife is worth $100M understand?
I was watching Dan's show and was fuming. Just when I was ready to change the channel and catch a rerun of some random Football game on the NFL Network, Tanya spoke what was at the core of my anger with the discussion. To paraphrase, Tanya wondered how the rejection of Obama by West Virginians was Obama's problem. She went on to say that if West Virginians would be willing to go against their own self interests and vote for McCain, then they would get what they deserved. Tanya's words silenced the rest of the panel, and no one had a word in reply. Tanya's statements reminded me of part of a HBO special by Whoopie Goldberg. Whoopie talked about Reagan's courtship and betrayal of Iowa Farmers in the '80s.
If Obama is an Elitist that does not understand the Working Class, does a guy whose wife is worth $100M understand?
Indiana VoterID Law
The Supreme Court did what we expected- they narrowly upheld a Republican-driven law that requires all voters to present government-issued IDs before voting. The problem is this law passed in Indiana is based on the possibility of voter fraud. In other words, Republicans have gotten what they have long sought- a law that allows them to turn away voters- Democratic voters.
Here's the deal- this law is supposed to prevent possible fraud- you going in and voting as someone else. It is not in response to actual cases of people pretending to be someone else and voting. The result is an attempt to stop some of the Democratic Parties core constituencies from voting. The remedy is simple, get a state-issued ID. The costs in Indiana seem reasonable and requirements are here. Yes, $13 might not be easy to come by, but the state has provisions in place for issuing the cards for free.
My big problem with the law is getting to the BMV Offices. The offices themselves are open Tuesday through Saturday, and according to the BMV Website, were open the Monday BEFORE the Indiana Primary. People without vehicles might have problems getting to one of the offices. MY IDEA- take your friends to get IDs. As part of the DNC GOTV Program, there should be local sites where people can go to get a ride on BUSES to BMV Offices.
Here's the deal- this law is supposed to prevent possible fraud- you going in and voting as someone else. It is not in response to actual cases of people pretending to be someone else and voting. The result is an attempt to stop some of the Democratic Parties core constituencies from voting. The remedy is simple, get a state-issued ID. The costs in Indiana seem reasonable and requirements are here. Yes, $13 might not be easy to come by, but the state has provisions in place for issuing the cards for free.
My big problem with the law is getting to the BMV Offices. The offices themselves are open Tuesday through Saturday, and according to the BMV Website, were open the Monday BEFORE the Indiana Primary. People without vehicles might have problems getting to one of the offices. MY IDEA- take your friends to get IDs. As part of the DNC GOTV Program, there should be local sites where people can go to get a ride on BUSES to BMV Offices.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Indiana and the General Election
There were a couple of issues that popped up during the Indiana Primary that made me think. As I mentioned in my last post, I've been very busy, and had little blogging time.
First off, many people were concerned that Lake County, IN took way too long to report results of the Democratic Primary. My real concern wasn't the amount of time it took to report, but the explanation that there was a huge number of absentee ballots to be counted- more than usual. To me, this is a double-edged sword- registered voters were actively exercising their voting rights, but at the same time, the county elections board did not respond to the large turnout.
This could mean trouble in the general election. Given the high numbers of newly-registered Democrats, Boards of Elections need to be prepared for those new voters to vote, PLUS large turnout from existing voters. Case in point, Porter County, IN ran out of ballots! This is unacceptable- especially given the number of new registrants. Porter County officials have vowed to have enough general election ballots for every registered voter in the county.
My concern/fear is the Provisional Ballot. If there is a question regarding your eligibility, the provisional ballot has been established as a way for you to vote, and have that vote counted if a judge rules in your favor. In 2004, we saw provisional ballots used in several places because the polling places ran out of ballots! I do not want a judge deciding whether my vote gets counted or not.
First off, many people were concerned that Lake County, IN took way too long to report results of the Democratic Primary. My real concern wasn't the amount of time it took to report, but the explanation that there was a huge number of absentee ballots to be counted- more than usual. To me, this is a double-edged sword- registered voters were actively exercising their voting rights, but at the same time, the county elections board did not respond to the large turnout.
This could mean trouble in the general election. Given the high numbers of newly-registered Democrats, Boards of Elections need to be prepared for those new voters to vote, PLUS large turnout from existing voters. Case in point, Porter County, IN ran out of ballots! This is unacceptable- especially given the number of new registrants. Porter County officials have vowed to have enough general election ballots for every registered voter in the county.
My concern/fear is the Provisional Ballot. If there is a question regarding your eligibility, the provisional ballot has been established as a way for you to vote, and have that vote counted if a judge rules in your favor. In 2004, we saw provisional ballots used in several places because the polling places ran out of ballots! I do not want a judge deciding whether my vote gets counted or not.
Catch-up Blogging
I have been crazy lately. End of the semester, grading, and yes INTERVIEWS, have kept me very busy. After a power nap of a few hours, I plan on doing a bit of blogging on issues regarding the Presidential race, race and swagger!
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Being out of touch gives me gas!
The issue du jour is the Gas Tax Holiday. Both Senators McCain and Clinton want to introduce a Gas Tax Holiday to offset the high cost of Gasoline. Hilary is demanding a vote in Congress and challenging her peers to show whether they are for the people or big oil. To be fair, Hilary has included paying for the holiday by imposing a Windfall Tax on Oil Companies.
Experts have panned the idea. Why? Simply put, if the tax is suspended, but the price of gas doesn't change, then the Oil Companies stand to make an additional $10B in profits! Obama points out that not only does the industry benefit, there will be an immediate loss of jobs caused by highway projects not getting funding. I think that may be a little dramatic, but it does reflect the idea that Federal Excise Taxes on gas are used to fund highway projects- projects that should be replacing many aging infrastructure. This link to the American Society of Civil Engineering Infrastructure Report Card has links to stories regarding infrastructure problems, as well as the actual report card. If you want a good understanding of why a tax holiday is a bad idea, just read the report.
Being out of touch is the claim made against Obama by McCain, yet this quote is telling: "I want to give the American consumer a little bit of relief just for the summer. Maybe they'll be able to buy an additional textbook for their children when they go back to school this fall." If Obama's calculations are correct, and since Hilary is not disputing them they just may be true, then each family looking at saving an average of $35 for the summer. John obviously doesn't know what textbooks cost today. One of my students borrowed a book from me, since the book in question is about $115! Read the rest here.
Am I knocking $35? Weighed against the cost of vital infrastructure repairs, yes I am. I am willing to pay that $35 if it means the roads will be safer. Remember the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis collapsed less than a year ago, and two of the three remaining candidates for President are willing to pay footsie for votes!! Check out Bagnewsnotes.
Experts have panned the idea. Why? Simply put, if the tax is suspended, but the price of gas doesn't change, then the Oil Companies stand to make an additional $10B in profits! Obama points out that not only does the industry benefit, there will be an immediate loss of jobs caused by highway projects not getting funding. I think that may be a little dramatic, but it does reflect the idea that Federal Excise Taxes on gas are used to fund highway projects- projects that should be replacing many aging infrastructure. This link to the American Society of Civil Engineering Infrastructure Report Card has links to stories regarding infrastructure problems, as well as the actual report card. If you want a good understanding of why a tax holiday is a bad idea, just read the report.
Being out of touch is the claim made against Obama by McCain, yet this quote is telling: "I want to give the American consumer a little bit of relief just for the summer. Maybe they'll be able to buy an additional textbook for their children when they go back to school this fall." If Obama's calculations are correct, and since Hilary is not disputing them they just may be true, then each family looking at saving an average of $35 for the summer. John obviously doesn't know what textbooks cost today. One of my students borrowed a book from me, since the book in question is about $115! Read the rest here.
Am I knocking $35? Weighed against the cost of vital infrastructure repairs, yes I am. I am willing to pay that $35 if it means the roads will be safer. Remember the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis collapsed less than a year ago, and two of the three remaining candidates for President are willing to pay footsie for votes!! Check out Bagnewsnotes.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Patriotism = Lapel Pin
I've been meaning to post more on the subject of how we have come to gauge patriotism on whether someone wears a lapel pin. Barack Obama has been savaged by the Right because he doesn't always wear a flag pin on his lapel. This is one of those dumb, really dumb manufactured issues that has nothing to do with one's love of country.
During that ABC "debate" a voter asked why Obama didn't wear a pin. The voter mentioned that first responders and soldiers wear one on their uniforms, why not the Senator? ABC's moderators also wanted to know why. That was a curious sort of hypocrisy considering no one on that stage was wearing one. But, here's my thoughts on that issue:
Soldiers and First Responders wear the US Flag as part of a uniform- they do not have the right to opt out of having that flag there. My question is does that flag make them any braver? Do Firefighters run faster into a burning building knowing they have the flag on their unis? Does the flag help a cop stop a crime when she is off duty and out of uniform? Is a soldier less brave if the flag is torn from his BDUs?
We have members of Congress that place a flag pin on their lapels daily. They then proceed to cut funding to vital US interests, like education and the VA. They block voting on important legislation and point the finger across the aisle. They give watch companies move offshore, then help lobby for those same companies to get vital government contracts.
I don't wear a lapel pin, yet I pay my taxes and do my best to educate the next generation of Americans. I love my country, and that love is not diminished on bit by my not wearing a pin.
We need to move past symbols, and get back to asking questions that really matter.
During that ABC "debate" a voter asked why Obama didn't wear a pin. The voter mentioned that first responders and soldiers wear one on their uniforms, why not the Senator? ABC's moderators also wanted to know why. That was a curious sort of hypocrisy considering no one on that stage was wearing one. But, here's my thoughts on that issue:
Soldiers and First Responders wear the US Flag as part of a uniform- they do not have the right to opt out of having that flag there. My question is does that flag make them any braver? Do Firefighters run faster into a burning building knowing they have the flag on their unis? Does the flag help a cop stop a crime when she is off duty and out of uniform? Is a soldier less brave if the flag is torn from his BDUs?
We have members of Congress that place a flag pin on their lapels daily. They then proceed to cut funding to vital US interests, like education and the VA. They block voting on important legislation and point the finger across the aisle. They give watch companies move offshore, then help lobby for those same companies to get vital government contracts.
I don't wear a lapel pin, yet I pay my taxes and do my best to educate the next generation of Americans. I love my country, and that love is not diminished on bit by my not wearing a pin.
We need to move past symbols, and get back to asking questions that really matter.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Pennsylvania Perspective
I watched MSNBC last night for commentary on the Pennsylvania Primary. As usual, Pat Buchanan was obnoxious- he is the ONLY commentator that feels the need to interrupt others. Why do the hosts of these shows not call him out on that??
The general meme that emerged was that Superdelegates should be worried that Obama cannot win the big Electoral College states like PA. Obama cannot put Hillary away. This is a HUGE problem for the Democratic Party. Obama is weak and suffered from Wright's comments and his own bitter comments. Panic in the streets!!
Rachel Maddow, who deserves her own show on MSNBC, put things in perspective. I will echo her comments, and add my own. Rachel reminded everyone throughout the night that Pennsylvania was the perfect Hillary state. The demographics fit her- older, white, blue-collar voters. The Democratic Party (read old-style machine) was backing Hillary from Day One. I'll go even further- Hillary Clinton had every advantage over the rest of the field in this election cycle. She not only has the Clinton name, but she has Bill's organization. Hillary has had years to plan for this primary. She had the time to fortify the organization that Bill built in the '90s. The Clinton name still has a lot of weight within the party. Hell, if it were not for Obama, I would probably be a Hillary supporter. I, like so many others, remember the Clinton Years and want it back. True that these next Clinton Years would be Hillary Clinton Years, but I thought Bill would still be around. As this process started, I realized that Bill's time was over, and this new Clinton may not be the same person (duh). It is exactly the advantages of organization, name recognition, and time that led Hillary to having a 20 point lead over Obama in PA just six weeks ago, and it is here that I truly depart with Russert, Buchanan, et al over what Hillary's victory means.
If Obama had a 20 point lead over Hillary six weeks prior to a state primary, and he only won by 10 points, what would the headlines read? Would the media see that as a big victory? Hillary had all the advantages going in. She even continued her "kitchen sink" attacks on Obama. Jeremiah Wright's comments, Bittergate, and charges of elitism were thrown at Obama. Given those attacks and a 20 point lead, Hillary should have blown Obama out by at least 20 points. Instead, she got away with a 10 point win. Now, 10 points is nothing to sneeze at, but when you are down 150+ pledged delegates, 10 points doesn't work in your favor. Chuck Todd tried to make that very point last night. His analysis was that the battle for pledged delegates is over- Hillary has lost that fight. She can still catch Obama on popular vote, and then make the case to Superdelegates that she can win the big states versus McCain.
That last part- Hillary can beat McCain in big states because she beat Obama. Non-sequitor Hillary! The majority of new voter registrations are for Dems. Unless these new voters are actually Republican sleepers, they will vote for the Democratic Nominee. Hillary's victories in California and Texas were secured mainly through early voting, with many of the new voters and last minutes decisions going to Obama. That says that while Obama was still relatively unknown (see above), as his campaign got rolling, more people have been drawn to him. Pennsylvania and Ohio were exceptions to this- the majority of PA voters that decided very close to the primary went with Hillary.
The general meme that emerged was that Superdelegates should be worried that Obama cannot win the big Electoral College states like PA. Obama cannot put Hillary away. This is a HUGE problem for the Democratic Party. Obama is weak and suffered from Wright's comments and his own bitter comments. Panic in the streets!!
Rachel Maddow, who deserves her own show on MSNBC, put things in perspective. I will echo her comments, and add my own. Rachel reminded everyone throughout the night that Pennsylvania was the perfect Hillary state. The demographics fit her- older, white, blue-collar voters. The Democratic Party (read old-style machine) was backing Hillary from Day One. I'll go even further- Hillary Clinton had every advantage over the rest of the field in this election cycle. She not only has the Clinton name, but she has Bill's organization. Hillary has had years to plan for this primary. She had the time to fortify the organization that Bill built in the '90s. The Clinton name still has a lot of weight within the party. Hell, if it were not for Obama, I would probably be a Hillary supporter. I, like so many others, remember the Clinton Years and want it back. True that these next Clinton Years would be Hillary Clinton Years, but I thought Bill would still be around. As this process started, I realized that Bill's time was over, and this new Clinton may not be the same person (duh). It is exactly the advantages of organization, name recognition, and time that led Hillary to having a 20 point lead over Obama in PA just six weeks ago, and it is here that I truly depart with Russert, Buchanan, et al over what Hillary's victory means.
If Obama had a 20 point lead over Hillary six weeks prior to a state primary, and he only won by 10 points, what would the headlines read? Would the media see that as a big victory? Hillary had all the advantages going in. She even continued her "kitchen sink" attacks on Obama. Jeremiah Wright's comments, Bittergate, and charges of elitism were thrown at Obama. Given those attacks and a 20 point lead, Hillary should have blown Obama out by at least 20 points. Instead, she got away with a 10 point win. Now, 10 points is nothing to sneeze at, but when you are down 150+ pledged delegates, 10 points doesn't work in your favor. Chuck Todd tried to make that very point last night. His analysis was that the battle for pledged delegates is over- Hillary has lost that fight. She can still catch Obama on popular vote, and then make the case to Superdelegates that she can win the big states versus McCain.
That last part- Hillary can beat McCain in big states because she beat Obama. Non-sequitor Hillary! The majority of new voter registrations are for Dems. Unless these new voters are actually Republican sleepers, they will vote for the Democratic Nominee. Hillary's victories in California and Texas were secured mainly through early voting, with many of the new voters and last minutes decisions going to Obama. That says that while Obama was still relatively unknown (see above), as his campaign got rolling, more people have been drawn to him. Pennsylvania and Ohio were exceptions to this- the majority of PA voters that decided very close to the primary went with Hillary.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
A view of The View
Elizabeth Hasslebeck of The View is a Republican Talking Points Action Figure (Batteries not included). She claims to have been an early supporter of Obama, but the other day said she was interested in him early on- in other words, who's this guy running and what reason can I have not to support him. Now she claims that due to the words of Rev Wright, she cannot support Obama.
After McCain's last visit to the show, the ladies got into a heated discussion about Joy's comment that McCain was too much like Bush. Elizabeth got hot and defended him, but could no more than parrot McCain's comments that he and Bush have many differences. The idea came up that McCain was very much like Bush because he associated himself with Bush. Elizabeth then proceeded to say that if that's the case, then Obama is very much like Rev Wright because he associated himself with Jeremiah Wright. Elizabeth refused to admit there might be a difference in the two associations.
When the subject of Cindy McCain's plagiarism of recipes from the Food Network came up, Elizabeth donned her cape and flew to poor Cindy's rescue. Elizabeth reminded everyone that Obama "plagiarized " parts of his stump speech from Duval Patrick, and since it was just words, it was no big deal that Cindy McCain was stealing recipes and calling them her own. Again, no admission of differences.
Lastly, Joy brought up Cindy McCain's addiction and theft of medications from her charity. Elizabeth immediately defended Cindy by saying that she had done so much good in her life that they should overlook that incident. She even went so far as to mention the McCains' adoption of a little girl from Indonesia. Yep, that same little girl who was the subject of a Karl Rove whispering campaign during the 2000 Republican Primary.
The problem I have is Elizabeth has consistently overlooked facts that would support her overlooking the incidents of Democrats, while trying to protect Republicans. She certainly forgot that both Obama and Patrick share ideas and themes. Patrick and Obama also don't mind sharing lines from speeches, so this is not what Joe Biden did in 1988 by any means. These are friends and yes Obama should have on every occasion given Patrick credit for his words. Now, Obama borrowing stump lines from a close colleague surely cannot be viewed in the same light as someone taking recipes from the Food Network and calling them their own. If it was a matter of calling them "Recipes our family enjoys" then that would not be as bad without citing the source of the recipes.
Elizabeth is quick to try to bludgeon Obama with Jeremiah Wright's words. She, like the majority of the media, is quick to reduce 36 years of Pastoring into 20 seconds of negative sound. Rev Wright has probably said some other things that could be taken the wrong way, but if the media was really interested in finding out, they would get recordings of Wright's sermons and listen. Elizabeth is willing to overlook the good he has done with and through TUCC and toss him under the bus because it suits the Republican cause.
After McCain's last visit to the show, the ladies got into a heated discussion about Joy's comment that McCain was too much like Bush. Elizabeth got hot and defended him, but could no more than parrot McCain's comments that he and Bush have many differences. The idea came up that McCain was very much like Bush because he associated himself with Bush. Elizabeth then proceeded to say that if that's the case, then Obama is very much like Rev Wright because he associated himself with Jeremiah Wright. Elizabeth refused to admit there might be a difference in the two associations.
When the subject of Cindy McCain's plagiarism of recipes from the Food Network came up, Elizabeth donned her cape and flew to poor Cindy's rescue. Elizabeth reminded everyone that Obama "plagiarized " parts of his stump speech from Duval Patrick, and since it was just words, it was no big deal that Cindy McCain was stealing recipes and calling them her own. Again, no admission of differences.
Lastly, Joy brought up Cindy McCain's addiction and theft of medications from her charity. Elizabeth immediately defended Cindy by saying that she had done so much good in her life that they should overlook that incident. She even went so far as to mention the McCains' adoption of a little girl from Indonesia. Yep, that same little girl who was the subject of a Karl Rove whispering campaign during the 2000 Republican Primary.
The problem I have is Elizabeth has consistently overlooked facts that would support her overlooking the incidents of Democrats, while trying to protect Republicans. She certainly forgot that both Obama and Patrick share ideas and themes. Patrick and Obama also don't mind sharing lines from speeches, so this is not what Joe Biden did in 1988 by any means. These are friends and yes Obama should have on every occasion given Patrick credit for his words. Now, Obama borrowing stump lines from a close colleague surely cannot be viewed in the same light as someone taking recipes from the Food Network and calling them their own. If it was a matter of calling them "Recipes our family enjoys" then that would not be as bad without citing the source of the recipes.
Elizabeth is quick to try to bludgeon Obama with Jeremiah Wright's words. She, like the majority of the media, is quick to reduce 36 years of Pastoring into 20 seconds of negative sound. Rev Wright has probably said some other things that could be taken the wrong way, but if the media was really interested in finding out, they would get recordings of Wright's sermons and listen. Elizabeth is willing to overlook the good he has done with and through TUCC and toss him under the bus because it suits the Republican cause.
Debt and Taxes
In this country, we have removed the links between debt, spending and taxes. Bush was adept at the notion of "Debt doesn't matter", and because of this, we are financing the war in Iraq, the Stimulus Package, and other spending through more debt. We went from a surplus to debt overnight, and Republicans have not said a word. In fact, they have gladly gone along with this bankrupting of our country. Who's buying our debt, and how will they use it?
McCain wants to permanently install Bush's tax cuts, but he doesn't say how he will pay for it. (Debt) Yet, in the ABC Debate, the hosts drilled Clinton and Obama about tax increases. Yes, I agree with Hillary that taxes have a place, and Bill's tax strategy helped get us out of debt. We need to have a honest discussion on how our next president is going to reduce our national debt. Obama hit on it by saying that we're racking up debts that our grandchildren won't be able to pay.
McCain wants to permanently install Bush's tax cuts, but he doesn't say how he will pay for it. (Debt) Yet, in the ABC Debate, the hosts drilled Clinton and Obama about tax increases. Yes, I agree with Hillary that taxes have a place, and Bill's tax strategy helped get us out of debt. We need to have a honest discussion on how our next president is going to reduce our national debt. Obama hit on it by saying that we're racking up debts that our grandchildren won't be able to pay.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Sorry Ass Debate
ABC News should be ashamed. During its hosted Democratic Debate from Philadelphia tonight was a complete waste of time. Okay, complete waste of time is a bit of an overstatement. ABC and it's hosts proved Senator Obama's points regarding the poor state of political discourse in America. It also proved the point he has made time and again about distractions being thrown up to divert us from discussing real issues. Look at the choice of questions for the first HOUR:
Bitterness
Rev. Wright
Rev Wright's love of America
Flag Lapel Pins
Bosnia
Economy (finally)
Notice a pattern? The hosts seemed to be carrying water for both John McCain AND Hillary Clinton. These are not the issues that most of us really care about. In addition, on the question of taxes, neither host seemed to recognize, or acknowledge, that the the need to eliminate debt or what the average American makes in this country.
Bitterness
Rev. Wright
Rev Wright's love of America
Flag Lapel Pins
Bosnia
Economy (finally)
Notice a pattern? The hosts seemed to be carrying water for both John McCain AND Hillary Clinton. These are not the issues that most of us really care about. In addition, on the question of taxes, neither host seemed to recognize, or acknowledge, that the the need to eliminate debt or what the average American makes in this country.
The price of cheap(er) Gas
What if United States domestic policy was helping fuel food riots and higher costs around the world? There was a small Ethanol Subsidy in Iowa for several years. You could buy Ethanol-blended gas (89 Octane) for less than 87 Octane Regular Unleaded gas. In the last couple of years, the idea of Biofuels has caught on and we are now saddled with a much larger subsidy.
As a result, the price of Corn has gone from approximately $2/Bushel to a high near $6/Bushel. This price increase means farmers are now more inclined to grow Corn for Ethanol Production, than say Corn for Consumption or Feed. This is only part of the problem that the media is starting to examine. Increased demand and Weather-related incidents are making for a perfect storm of storages in basic food stuffs. Check out Dan Froomkin's round-up here. We are paying the price for not developing this technology sooner. Brazil started its research after The Arab Embargo in the '70s.
As a result, the price of Corn has gone from approximately $2/Bushel to a high near $6/Bushel. This price increase means farmers are now more inclined to grow Corn for Ethanol Production, than say Corn for Consumption or Feed. This is only part of the problem that the media is starting to examine. Increased demand and Weather-related incidents are making for a perfect storm of storages in basic food stuffs. Check out Dan Froomkin's round-up here. We are paying the price for not developing this technology sooner. Brazil started its research after The Arab Embargo in the '70s.
More Bitter Blues
No, I cannot let this go- I'm bitter dammit!! We have heard a lot about what Barack Obama said in a closed-door fundraiser in *gasp* San Francisco of all places. What if there was another perspective on the comments that the media can't let go? Read David Coleman's piece on Huffington Post.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The party's over and the guests won't leave
What happens if you have a party and the guests won't leave? Start a fire? Call the police?
While everyone in DC was going at each other about whether to leave Iraq, under what conditions we could start to withdraw, and whether it was in OUR best interest to do so, a lone voice spoke the truth. Iraq's Prime Minister al-Maliki said that US forces could be withdrawn starting now. Who listened? Damn near no one. Like two parents arguing over what a child wants, no one hears the child what he wants. Now, I'm not calling Iraq, the Iraqi people or the Iraqi government children. I'm saying the exact opposite- they are people who can and should control their own destiny (again).
If the government of Iraq, in the form of the Prime Minister is saying "Last Call, you ain't got to go home but you got to get hell out of here," then we ought to pack our stuff and go. If Bush gave a hoot about us, the Iraqis and the troops, he'd declare victory (because Maliki said we can go- the are standing up so we can stand down) and bring our people home.
While everyone in DC was going at each other about whether to leave Iraq, under what conditions we could start to withdraw, and whether it was in OUR best interest to do so, a lone voice spoke the truth. Iraq's Prime Minister al-Maliki said that US forces could be withdrawn starting now. Who listened? Damn near no one. Like two parents arguing over what a child wants, no one hears the child what he wants. Now, I'm not calling Iraq, the Iraqi people or the Iraqi government children. I'm saying the exact opposite- they are people who can and should control their own destiny (again).
If the government of Iraq, in the form of the Prime Minister is saying "Last Call, you ain't got to go home but you got to get hell out of here," then we ought to pack our stuff and go. If Bush gave a hoot about us, the Iraqis and the troops, he'd declare victory (because Maliki said we can go- the are standing up so we can stand down) and bring our people home.
Hell, I'm still bitter!!
Big Steel decided to face competition from Japan, then Korea, and etc by NOT modernizing or changing business plans, and crying to government for help. Protections helped business leaders in Steel draw more money out of the industry, and then walk away when things fell apart. Who got hurt? The workers that were caught in the collapse.
When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, it didn't matter that whether people evacuated or not, they got the shaft from Insurance Companies as well as their government. To add insult to injury, the government gave no bid contracts to companies that in turn recruited and hired immigrants to do some of the rebuilding, instead of letting the people who lived there do the work. The difference was in pay- it was cheaper to hire others to do the job, and save the money for profits. Who gets hurt? The people that lost everything, and got nothing in return.
When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, it didn't matter that whether people evacuated or not, they got the shaft from Insurance Companies as well as their government. To add insult to injury, the government gave no bid contracts to companies that in turn recruited and hired immigrants to do some of the rebuilding, instead of letting the people who lived there do the work. The difference was in pay- it was cheaper to hire others to do the job, and save the money for profits. Who gets hurt? The people that lost everything, and got nothing in return.
Hell, I'm Bitter too!
Barack Obama commented that people in small towns are mad, frustrated and bitter that government (politicos they elected) have done nothing about the loss of jobs, and instead fed them excuses like "Hey, those illegals are the reason jobs haven't returned." Despite the fact that Gays, Guns, and Religion had nothing to do with the losses, they are the "red meat" issues politians have given the populous to chew on. Obama has said this before in 2004, but the differences are 1) he was more eloquent the first time, 2) he was new to the Senate (won the election but not sworn in), 3) wasn't running for President, and 4) didn't have Clinton, McCain and a bored Media at his back.
Now people are not so much arguing against his point that things are going well for some of us, they are upset by the characterization via the word bitter. McCain and Clinton have called Obama out of touch and Elitist for speaking the truth. This latest controversy is like the others aimed at Obama- much about nothing. Even the people are starting to catch on and not buy the BS. While I don't have a link to CNN's Jack Cafferty, his comment was something to the effect of "even someone like me, who barely graduated high school , can see that Obama was not attacking small town Americans." Facts be damned, Hillary forges ahead with criticism of Obama's comments. Clinton and McCain are proving to be the Elitists here. McCain's plan for dealing with the Mortgage mess was to blame everyone equally and let people sink or swim on their own. Two weeks later, he ran from the plan. Hillary's plan was fair, but she did not anticipate this crisis, and in turn, criticized Obama's plan as timid, despite the fact that he was
requesting action from Bush a year ago.
Hale Stewart has a good blog explaining bitter. If you don't get it, bitter has been around a while. In previous election cycles "Angry White Males", "Reagan Democrats", and other groups could easily have been characterized as bitter. Bill Clinton called them insecure. The word bitter does describe some people- people who see the price of Food, Energy, Transportation, Housing and everything else rising much faster than their salaries- that's 99.999% of us by the way.
Now people are not so much arguing against his point that things are going well for some of us, they are upset by the characterization via the word bitter. McCain and Clinton have called Obama out of touch and Elitist for speaking the truth. This latest controversy is like the others aimed at Obama- much about nothing. Even the people are starting to catch on and not buy the BS. While I don't have a link to CNN's Jack Cafferty, his comment was something to the effect of "even someone like me, who barely graduated high school , can see that Obama was not attacking small town Americans." Facts be damned, Hillary forges ahead with criticism of Obama's comments. Clinton and McCain are proving to be the Elitists here. McCain's plan for dealing with the Mortgage mess was to blame everyone equally and let people sink or swim on their own. Two weeks later, he ran from the plan. Hillary's plan was fair, but she did not anticipate this crisis, and in turn, criticized Obama's plan as timid, despite the fact that he was
requesting action from Bush a year ago.
Hale Stewart has a good blog explaining bitter. If you don't get it, bitter has been around a while. In previous election cycles "Angry White Males", "Reagan Democrats", and other groups could easily have been characterized as bitter. Bill Clinton called them insecure. The word bitter does describe some people- people who see the price of Food, Energy, Transportation, Housing and everything else rising much faster than their salaries- that's 99.999% of us by the way.
America does not torture
No, we just use enhanced interrogation techniques.... Wait, you mean that those soldiers from West Virginia whom the administration tried and convicted were NOT the originators of torture??? The President expressed grave concern that he was left out of the loop.
The Decider goes to Capitol Hill
Yeah right. President Bush has set himself up as the Decider-in-Chief, yet he sends underlings to testify and say that there will be no troop withdrawal. It amazes me that the Decider whose leadership on Iraq has been called bold refuses to well, be bold and venture up to visit the entire Congress. Bush met with "key" members of Congress (read Republican lapdogs), then held a press conference to announce that *surprise* that troop levels will remain the same and everything is good. Then he has the audacity to say that losing in Iraq is the only thing that can destroy morale.
If Bush really believed that what we are doing in Iraq is right, he'd make that bold move and go to the Hill and run a special session, answering any and all questions with none of that "I have secret information I cannot share with you BS". Well, I guess DICK's comment makes that impossible.
If Bush really believed that what we are doing in Iraq is right, he'd make that bold move and go to the Hill and run a special session, answering any and all questions with none of that "I have secret information I cannot share with you BS". Well, I guess DICK's comment makes that impossible.
Iraq Hearings
Last week, Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker were testifying before Congress about conditions in Iraq. There were a few of things that struck me about their testimony:
1) They both talked of the fragile gains that have been made in Iraq. These gains were spoken of in less glowing terms used by Bush. Bush talked about a new Iraq in 2006, while Crocker and Petraeus talked of a country on the verge of collapse. Bush again *shock and surprise* lied about the conditions on the ground.
2) Petraeus and Crocker have to toe the company line if they like their jobs. How many generals and appointees have been fired, retired and forced out for saying that Iraq was less than a paradise. To me, this means their testimony has to be discounted. Petraeus did come close by saying that victory is far off.
3) Even though Bush claims to listen to the Generals, he really only listens to the ones that say what he wants to hear.
1) They both talked of the fragile gains that have been made in Iraq. These gains were spoken of in less glowing terms used by Bush. Bush talked about a new Iraq in 2006, while Crocker and Petraeus talked of a country on the verge of collapse. Bush again *shock and surprise* lied about the conditions on the ground.
2) Petraeus and Crocker have to toe the company line if they like their jobs. How many generals and appointees have been fired, retired and forced out for saying that Iraq was less than a paradise. To me, this means their testimony has to be discounted. Petraeus did come close by saying that victory is far off.
3) Even though Bush claims to listen to the Generals, he really only listens to the ones that say what he wants to hear.
The power of the Blog!!
I've been overwhelmed with work, work, work, family and work. There have been several things that I've had every intention of blogging about, but usually those thoughts happen around 3:30am, and I'm working (more on that later) or sleeping.
I'll attempt to catch up now...
I'll attempt to catch up now...
Friday, April 4, 2008
40 years later....
Martin Luther King, jr was assassinated 40 years today. People across the country are remembering this day. I was too young to remember what happened (almost three at the time), so instead of commemorating the day, I will say more about race.
40 years ago, Republicans, particularly Conservatives hated King. People like Pat Buchanan felt that King was a fraud and a con man. Others, like J Edgar Hoover, thought he was a subversive out to destroy America. Given his mission at the time of his death, some African Americans felt he was turning his back on his calling by supporting striking garbage workers in Memphis.
Today, Conservatives sometimes argue that King would not support Affirmative Action. Pick your jaw up off the floor, man. The argument goes like this:
"In his I have a dream speech, Dr. King speaks of people being judged by the content of
their character not the color of their skin."
They also like to portray Dr. King as a dreamer. A great Orator who had a vision for an ideal America that moved beyond racial preferences.
That is a nice try. Dr. King had a vision for America, but he rooted that vision in the hard reality of his time. He stated:
"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."
Those are the words of a man who knew that he was viewed as less than human, that his wife and children were viewed as less than, and that if this country was to move forward, it would need to acknowledge the anger and frustration felt by a people systematically held back for no other reason than a social construct called race. Those are the words of someone who expected, demanded more of his country.
Here we are 40 years after this man's death. Read the speech here and tell me again how inflammatory the words of Jeremiah Wright are.
40 years ago, Republicans, particularly Conservatives hated King. People like Pat Buchanan felt that King was a fraud and a con man. Others, like J Edgar Hoover, thought he was a subversive out to destroy America. Given his mission at the time of his death, some African Americans felt he was turning his back on his calling by supporting striking garbage workers in Memphis.
Today, Conservatives sometimes argue that King would not support Affirmative Action. Pick your jaw up off the floor, man. The argument goes like this:
"In his I have a dream speech, Dr. King speaks of people being judged by the content of
their character not the color of their skin."
They also like to portray Dr. King as a dreamer. A great Orator who had a vision for an ideal America that moved beyond racial preferences.
That is a nice try. Dr. King had a vision for America, but he rooted that vision in the hard reality of his time. He stated:
"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."
Those are the words of a man who knew that he was viewed as less than human, that his wife and children were viewed as less than, and that if this country was to move forward, it would need to acknowledge the anger and frustration felt by a people systematically held back for no other reason than a social construct called race. Those are the words of someone who expected, demanded more of his country.
Here we are 40 years after this man's death. Read the speech here and tell me again how inflammatory the words of Jeremiah Wright are.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Right back at you Pat
In my previous post, I linked to Pat Buchanan's piece on Race. That piece was supposed to answer Barack Obama's speech on race from Philly. To me, Pat's screed did much more than provide an answer from an angry White American, it also showed why Obama's follow-up discussion about his grandmother.
Obama did an interview and basically said his grandmother was a typical White person of her time. The Right twisted this into Obama saying his grandmother was a typical White person- implying that Obama was saying that the typical White person is a bigot. I say bigot because racist implies not just a prejudice, but power to act on that prejudice. The big distinction is that his grandmother is older, and from a time when calling an African American a nigger, boy, girl or darkie was as acceptable as calling that person by her/his name. That was a time not long after D.W. Griffith's Birth of A Nation, portrayed African American men as savage rapists looking to have their way with any White woman unlucky enough to be alone with them, and African American women as wanton sexpots ready at all times for all interested. In that climate, one born in Slavery and perpetuated in Post-Slavery America, Obama's grandmother grew up. That she feared/fears African American men is a function of her upbringing.
Pat Buchanan attempted to tap into that White anger that Obama mentioned. Is White anger real? As real as Black anger. The period between Reconstruction and The Civil Rights movement is approximately 100 years (1865- 1969). During that time, African Americans were still virtual slaves in some parts of America. The right to vote was continuously and violently denied. Black men were jailed and subsequently lynched for the offense of reckless eyeballing a White woman. This law was used to: 1) force Black men to not look White women in the eyes, and 2) eliminate African American businesses by having shop owners arrested for such an offense. The Tulsa Riot in 1921 was sparked by the supposed attack of a white woman (see the official report from 2001).
Buchanan was quick to point out that African Americans commit rape against Whites at a rate 100 times greater than Whites against Blacks. So, I was curious because I have heard that before and was never able to find those statistics. Check out the FBI website here. Googling black on white crime statistics shows articles and discussions like this, but little clue as to where these statistics were generated. I went to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and did not find data to support Buchanan's claim. I did find this little piece of information here: For 2005, "About seven in ten female rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender was an intimate, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance." This does not support what Buchanan attempts to imply about Black on White crime. Furthermore, the FBI's Uniform Crime Report does not include information on the race of victim versus offender. Does Pat's information come from discussions and sites like this? The Department of Justice does publish the National Crime Victimization Survey. Buchanan claims Whites are 100 times likely to be raped by Blacks than vice versa, yet the NCVS for 2001 (a year he cites) shows that the chance is less than twice as likely. The data is also skewed because the survey is based on the perception of the attackers race. Look here on Table 42.
Buchanan is looking to do what republicans have done for years- scare the voters into doing something. Well Pat, a lot of people have been pushed into doing something for the last eight years, and they are really tired. You proved Obama's point, pundits will try to distract us from looking and discussing real issues, and you my friend, are trying hard, but no prize.
Obama did an interview and basically said his grandmother was a typical White person of her time. The Right twisted this into Obama saying his grandmother was a typical White person- implying that Obama was saying that the typical White person is a bigot. I say bigot because racist implies not just a prejudice, but power to act on that prejudice. The big distinction is that his grandmother is older, and from a time when calling an African American a nigger, boy, girl or darkie was as acceptable as calling that person by her/his name. That was a time not long after D.W. Griffith's Birth of A Nation, portrayed African American men as savage rapists looking to have their way with any White woman unlucky enough to be alone with them, and African American women as wanton sexpots ready at all times for all interested. In that climate, one born in Slavery and perpetuated in Post-Slavery America, Obama's grandmother grew up. That she feared/fears African American men is a function of her upbringing.
Pat Buchanan attempted to tap into that White anger that Obama mentioned. Is White anger real? As real as Black anger. The period between Reconstruction and The Civil Rights movement is approximately 100 years (1865- 1969). During that time, African Americans were still virtual slaves in some parts of America. The right to vote was continuously and violently denied. Black men were jailed and subsequently lynched for the offense of reckless eyeballing a White woman. This law was used to: 1) force Black men to not look White women in the eyes, and 2) eliminate African American businesses by having shop owners arrested for such an offense. The Tulsa Riot in 1921 was sparked by the supposed attack of a white woman (see the official report from 2001).
Buchanan was quick to point out that African Americans commit rape against Whites at a rate 100 times greater than Whites against Blacks. So, I was curious because I have heard that before and was never able to find those statistics. Check out the FBI website here. Googling black on white crime statistics shows articles and discussions like this, but little clue as to where these statistics were generated. I went to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and did not find data to support Buchanan's claim. I did find this little piece of information here: For 2005, "About seven in ten female rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender was an intimate, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance." This does not support what Buchanan attempts to imply about Black on White crime. Furthermore, the FBI's Uniform Crime Report does not include information on the race of victim versus offender. Does Pat's information come from discussions and sites like this? The Department of Justice does publish the National Crime Victimization Survey. Buchanan claims Whites are 100 times likely to be raped by Blacks than vice versa, yet the NCVS for 2001 (a year he cites) shows that the chance is less than twice as likely. The data is also skewed because the survey is based on the perception of the attackers race. Look here on Table 42.
Buchanan is looking to do what republicans have done for years- scare the voters into doing something. Well Pat, a lot of people have been pushed into doing something for the last eight years, and they are really tired. You proved Obama's point, pundits will try to distract us from looking and discussing real issues, and you my friend, are trying hard, but no prize.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Tangled Web of Race
Chris Matthews had Senator Obama on Hardball tonight. Matthews asked Obama what it was like to be a black kid with a white mother. It reminded me of a comment that Ted Koppel made on ABC's Nightline- that race is a social construct designed to create a support a heirarchy based on skin color. The mixing of White with anything nonwhite is viewed as contamination. It means a White woman can bear a black child, but a Black woman can never bear a white child.
While Obama took on addressing the issue of race and trying to make a case for the anger felt by both Whites and Blacks, our boy Pat Buchanan proved Obama was so right- in a most ironic way. You can read Pat's screed here.
While Obama took on addressing the issue of race and trying to make a case for the anger felt by both Whites and Blacks, our boy Pat Buchanan proved Obama was so right- in a most ironic way. You can read Pat's screed here.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
The R Word
It's not Recession, which Bush will never admit we are in. It's regulation- that's the dirty R word. Sunday's New York Times has an article on the pickle Republicans are suddenly finding themselves in. Typically, Republicans hate oversight and regulation. They believe that regulations and oversight interfere with profits, and as we all know, profits are everything. Protecting profits is more important than preventing the theft of a million dollars from the NRCC.
Even with the loss of a million dollars, House Republicans still cannot find it in their hearts to promote better regulation of Investment Firms. The Mortgage Industry is in tatters, foreclosures are dropping like rain, Investment Firms are hurting via SubPrime lending practices and are leading to extremely tight credit. The impact is you and I are getting the crap kicked out of us- that house you bought as part of Bush's Ownership Society at a teaser rate of 1.9% is now about to grow greatly, while the value of your home is plummeting.
Bush promised no bailout, but the Fed is pumping Billions of public dollars into these firms to bailout this industry. AT the same time, Republicans and Wall Street are crying foul at the idea of regulation. Let's see, no regulation leads to economic crisis requiring people and firms to be bailed out, and there's no need for more oversight to help prevent a repeat??
Even with the loss of a million dollars, House Republicans still cannot find it in their hearts to promote better regulation of Investment Firms. The Mortgage Industry is in tatters, foreclosures are dropping like rain, Investment Firms are hurting via SubPrime lending practices and are leading to extremely tight credit. The impact is you and I are getting the crap kicked out of us- that house you bought as part of Bush's Ownership Society at a teaser rate of 1.9% is now about to grow greatly, while the value of your home is plummeting.
Bush promised no bailout, but the Fed is pumping Billions of public dollars into these firms to bailout this industry. AT the same time, Republicans and Wall Street are crying foul at the idea of regulation. Let's see, no regulation leads to economic crisis requiring people and firms to be bailed out, and there's no need for more oversight to help prevent a repeat??
He's got it in the Bank!
John McCain has said and done some interesting things in his lifetime. The one everyone is reminded of his his time as a Naval Aviator and POW. McCain's service to his country has been much more colorful than that. The problem is the media LOVES THEM SOME John McCain.
Crooks and Liars posted about Chuck Todd's comments on Meet The Press last Sunday. Todd's comments matter because these are the positions of the media in general. Worse still, Todd is the Political Director at NBC- he sets the tone and direction of political stories. McCain has been treated to the gentlest, most sympathetic media coverage possible. The press doesn't ask the hard questions, and when an embarrassing question is asked, McCain is given every opportunity to answer, and that answer is accepted at face value.
McCain goes to Iraq and the coverage is favorable. He says that Iran is training al Qaeda, instead of insurgents, and the press says "Senior Moment". McCain says it safe in Iraq- no matter anyone says, (including media coverage of open rebellion in Basra), and the press says nothing. McCain, as noted on Countdown, has continuously said for years that he knows nothing about the Economy. The media's response is to ignore that repeated comment. The non-response holds even after McCain gives a speech on the Economy!
Bush was the candidate the press most would want to have a Beer with, and McCain the candidate they would want most to protect.
Crooks and Liars posted about Chuck Todd's comments on Meet The Press last Sunday. Todd's comments matter because these are the positions of the media in general. Worse still, Todd is the Political Director at NBC- he sets the tone and direction of political stories. McCain has been treated to the gentlest, most sympathetic media coverage possible. The press doesn't ask the hard questions, and when an embarrassing question is asked, McCain is given every opportunity to answer, and that answer is accepted at face value.
McCain goes to Iraq and the coverage is favorable. He says that Iran is training al Qaeda, instead of insurgents, and the press says "Senior Moment". McCain says it safe in Iraq- no matter anyone says, (including media coverage of open rebellion in Basra), and the press says nothing. McCain, as noted on Countdown, has continuously said for years that he knows nothing about the Economy. The media's response is to ignore that repeated comment. The non-response holds even after McCain gives a speech on the Economy!
Bush was the candidate the press most would want to have a Beer with, and McCain the candidate they would want most to protect.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Working to defeat change
Fran, Fran, Fran, I read about you. The 2004 US Senate race in Illinois was one marked by several candidates falling to personal issues. Wikipedia has the list of candidates from the primary and general races. Jack Ryan came out of the Republican Primary looking like a strong challenger for Obama, but ended up leaving the race over allegations that he was pressuring his then wife to have sex in public at some sex clubs they both attended.
The GOP needed to field a candidate. In a move I could only see as cynical, the Illinois GOP passed on Jim Oberweis, who gathered the second largest vote count in the Repub primary (but had to deal with allegations that he had illegals working in his stores, while running a decidedly anti-immigrant campaign) and selected Alan Keyes. Yes, THAT Alan Keyes- the professional presidential candidate. The same Alan Keyes who moved from Maryland to Illinois to run, and the same Alan Keyes that pilloried Hilary Clinton for moving to New York to run (who's the carpetbagger now). The biggest difference is , well, Hillary won.
Oh yeah Fran, you still here? You used to work for Keyes' campaign. After Keyes lost, you kind of faded into the background for a while. I remember you Fran because you wrote this piece critical of Trinity United Church of Christ and Rev. Wright long before Obama announced his candidacy for president. That piece came up after Obama's announcement, and people like Sean "I gave the super secret call-in number to my radio to to a Nazi" Hannity slowly started to pick through TUCC's statement on values to smear.
Here's what I know Fran, to quote Dick Gregory, there are probably more Blacks and Whites sitting in taverns together than in church. I've heard and read stories for years that 11am on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week. We don't worship together. In fact, many of the major denominational organizations split over the issue of race long ago. They continue to be have separate organizations for predominately Black and White churches. There is the shame in this whole story- we can agree on a theological doctrine, but cannot agree on work together- because of race. It's not uncommon for people to separate themselves to worship. It's a shame, but it is truly the way in America.
The GOP needed to field a candidate. In a move I could only see as cynical, the Illinois GOP passed on Jim Oberweis, who gathered the second largest vote count in the Repub primary (but had to deal with allegations that he had illegals working in his stores, while running a decidedly anti-immigrant campaign) and selected Alan Keyes. Yes, THAT Alan Keyes- the professional presidential candidate. The same Alan Keyes who moved from Maryland to Illinois to run, and the same Alan Keyes that pilloried Hilary Clinton for moving to New York to run (who's the carpetbagger now). The biggest difference is , well, Hillary won.
Oh yeah Fran, you still here? You used to work for Keyes' campaign. After Keyes lost, you kind of faded into the background for a while. I remember you Fran because you wrote this piece critical of Trinity United Church of Christ and Rev. Wright long before Obama announced his candidacy for president. That piece came up after Obama's announcement, and people like Sean "I gave the super secret call-in number to my radio to to a Nazi" Hannity slowly started to pick through TUCC's statement on values to smear.
Here's what I know Fran, to quote Dick Gregory, there are probably more Blacks and Whites sitting in taverns together than in church. I've heard and read stories for years that 11am on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week. We don't worship together. In fact, many of the major denominational organizations split over the issue of race long ago. They continue to be have separate organizations for predominately Black and White churches. There is the shame in this whole story- we can agree on a theological doctrine, but cannot agree on work together- because of race. It's not uncommon for people to separate themselves to worship. It's a shame, but it is truly the way in America.
Double Standard, Part 4
In recapping Senator Obama's Philadelphia speech on race, Dan Abrams quickly caught on to the idea that Obama was blaming the media. He immediately pooh-poohed the idea that the media was somehow responsible for starting and perpetuating the Rev. Wright dustup. While Dan didn't exactly roll his eyes, he obviously felt Obama was wrong, and had to be made to answer for Wright's comments.
Abrams felt like he was in control of the segment until one of his guests echoed Obama's comment about the media showing those two clips of Wright on an endless loop. Dan replied that there may be other clips of Wright making inflammatory statements, but didn't know. His guest replied that the media could obtain copies from the church (which sells copies of sermons). Dan looked a little green. She then asked why MSNBC was not airing clips of the sermon that Wright gave that inspired Obama to write The Audacity of Hope. Again, Abrams looked flummoxed.
The media has chosen a narrative that Rev. Wright is a crazy, racist maniac. This narrative ignores over 207,000 minutes of sermons offered up by Rev. Wright and replaces them with 15-20 seconds of endless looping video.
Abrams felt like he was in control of the segment until one of his guests echoed Obama's comment about the media showing those two clips of Wright on an endless loop. Dan replied that there may be other clips of Wright making inflammatory statements, but didn't know. His guest replied that the media could obtain copies from the church (which sells copies of sermons). Dan looked a little green. She then asked why MSNBC was not airing clips of the sermon that Wright gave that inspired Obama to write The Audacity of Hope. Again, Abrams looked flummoxed.
The media has chosen a narrative that Rev. Wright is a crazy, racist maniac. This narrative ignores over 207,000 minutes of sermons offered up by Rev. Wright and replaces them with 15-20 seconds of endless looping video.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Obama's speech on Race and Religion
Not many candidates even touch these issues. It has been shameful the way the media and the Right have played up the comments of Rev. Wright. The Double Standard remains in place. Senator Obama took this opportunity to address some of Rev. Wright's comments AND issues of race in America. I've seen excepts from the speech and feel that he touched on many things that black folks feel. He also put the challenge out to everyone to think back and remember if there is anything that there Rabbi, Pastor, Priest, etc has said that they found controversial.
Of course, those on the Right are spinning that Obama's speech did not answer some questions. They need to keep this non-issue alive so they can continue to deflect the campaign from addressing real issues- five years in Iraq and Afghanistan, tanking economy, spiking energy prices, and healthcare. These are issues McCain isn't talking about, has no clue about, but believes we maintain a presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for 100 years!!! BTW, here's his take on Iran.
What are some folks saying? Read the speech here, and commentary here, here, and here. This is an interesting take on a question that the Right will push.
Of course, those on the Right are spinning that Obama's speech did not answer some questions. They need to keep this non-issue alive so they can continue to deflect the campaign from addressing real issues- five years in Iraq and Afghanistan, tanking economy, spiking energy prices, and healthcare. These are issues McCain isn't talking about, has no clue about, but believes we maintain a presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for 100 years!!! BTW, here's his take on Iran.
What are some folks saying? Read the speech here, and commentary here, here, and here. This is an interesting take on a question that the Right will push.
Double Standard, part 3
Posted without comment- John Ridley's comment on the tarring of Obama via his pastor.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Running like the Opposition
It strikes me at Hillary Clinton is very content to attack Barack Obama on non-issues or misstating his positions. Clinton even has the nerve to say the Michigan and Florida Primaries were fair contests and the delegates need to be seated per the votes. Senator Clinton, like every other Democratic contender, signed a DNC pledge to only campaign in DNC-sanctioned primaries and caucuses. Obama was not on the Michigan ballot, yet Clinton feels the results were fair, because (wait for it) Obama chose not to participate in the primary. She is right in that Obama, like all other candidates, did not participate in a primary the DNC declared null and void, but Clinton's twisted logic seems to be "I'm losing so, the screw the pledge I made to the DNC." Facts aside, Senator Clinton thinks she is being messed over.
Before the first primary, the Clinton Campaign acted and spoke as if the nomination was hers. After the Iowa Caucuses, the campaign pooh-poohed Iowa as a caucus state- unimportant in the nomination process. With the exception of Nevada, Obama does better in the caucuses. Not sure what a caucus is? Check it out. Clinton won a slim victory in the Texas Primary, but seems to have lost the caucus. The net result may be Obama losing the primary vote in Texas, but because of the Two-Step (Primary AND Caucus) gaining a net of +7 delegates. The media has been less than interested in showing those results. The response from the Clinton Campaign is a series of requests to the Texas Democratic Party to delay the Two-Step results.
The whole idea of some super-secret Commander-in-Chief Test is delusional at best, insane at worst. So who gets to take the test, what are the parameters of this exam, who administers and scores it, and lastly who put Hillary in charge of announcing the results? I am amazed at the gall of the Clinton Campaign to announce that Clinton and McCain are tested and ready to assume the role of President of the United States based on this silly yardstick.
To me these are very much Republican tactics.
Before the first primary, the Clinton Campaign acted and spoke as if the nomination was hers. After the Iowa Caucuses, the campaign pooh-poohed Iowa as a caucus state- unimportant in the nomination process. With the exception of Nevada, Obama does better in the caucuses. Not sure what a caucus is? Check it out. Clinton won a slim victory in the Texas Primary, but seems to have lost the caucus. The net result may be Obama losing the primary vote in Texas, but because of the Two-Step (Primary AND Caucus) gaining a net of +7 delegates. The media has been less than interested in showing those results. The response from the Clinton Campaign is a series of requests to the Texas Democratic Party to delay the Two-Step results.
The whole idea of some super-secret Commander-in-Chief Test is delusional at best, insane at worst. So who gets to take the test, what are the parameters of this exam, who administers and scores it, and lastly who put Hillary in charge of announcing the results? I am amazed at the gall of the Clinton Campaign to announce that Clinton and McCain are tested and ready to assume the role of President of the United States based on this silly yardstick.
To me these are very much Republican tactics.
Ready from Day One
John McCain has stated that he is ready to be Commander-in-Chief from Day One. Senator Clinton seems to concur- both she and Senator McCain will be ready Day One. Well, Senator McCain visited Iraq for the eighth time. Does this inspire confidence to you? This image is from The Boston Globe, but was also used in today's New York Times and USA Today. I don't really get into the psychological messages of images- Bagnewsnotes does that all too well.
One thing I am reminded of is this image of John Kerry from the 2004 Campaign:
The Double Standard, part 2
I grew up an occasional church-goer. My mother, two brothers and I went once or twice a month, with my father usually making it on the major Sundays (Mother's Day, Father's Day, Easter, etc). At some point, flying lessons began to dominate Sundays, and it was either attending early service, or not going before flying. Well, flying took over Sundays, and when we did return to church, some things had changed.....
It was subtle at first- women were no longer allowed to wear pants to service. Like so many black churches, come as you are was not acceptable. If you went out partying Saturday, please stop at home for a quick change before church. Honesty, I never saw anyone wear jeans to church before I attended college! Slowly, our church changed. It seemed like one week there was just an Organ and Piano, to the next week there was the Organ, Piano, Drums, Guitar, Keyboards, and a 24-Track Mixer. Our church went and got all COGIC on us! We didn't so much leave as just slowly stop attending. My parents didn't always agree with Pastor Connors sermons, but the idea of the church changing was too much. Later on, we heard some rather disturbing news about our old pastor.
I have a challenge for you.... How many of you completely agree with everything your pastor says and does? Should you then be held accountable for each and every action and word? Should you have to distance yourself from your pastor because you don't agree?
This is what the media is doing to Senator Obama- forcing him to denounce each and every statement by Rev. Wright, that seems to raise ANY controversy. Regardless (since irregardless is one of those nonsense non-words) of the absurdity of associating Obama with Wright's thoughts, the media is intent on finding controversy with Obama's campaign and plans for America. As if the whole Obama-as-asleeper-Muslim wasn't bad enough, the media has decided that Rev. Jeremiah Wright's words are enough to find Obama unfit to be President. If every candidate has dirt, the media is determined to make Wright Obama's. To take this one step further, the media is also determining that it is only going to apply this standard to Obama and Wright.
Case in point, read Frank Shaeffer's perspective on Huffington Post and digest it. He asks and answers some every key questions about this dust-up. Anyone remember Rev. Pat Robertson's suggestion on how the US should deal with Hugo Chavez? How about what these religious leaders had to say about Hurricane Katrina? Never mind that Robertson's organization benefited from Katrina. Yes, Rev. Wright mentioned 9/11, but so did others here. Yet we don't see the media scrutinizing McCain or Clinton based on statements of religious leaders that support them. BTW, the media did mention John Hagee's anti-Catholic comments, but stopped quickly. The media did not dig any deeper. If it did, Hagee might have to explain how pushing for Armageddon would be good for Jews if he feels they will all be destroyed in that conflict.
Crooksandliars is on it as well.
It was subtle at first- women were no longer allowed to wear pants to service. Like so many black churches, come as you are was not acceptable. If you went out partying Saturday, please stop at home for a quick change before church. Honesty, I never saw anyone wear jeans to church before I attended college! Slowly, our church changed. It seemed like one week there was just an Organ and Piano, to the next week there was the Organ, Piano, Drums, Guitar, Keyboards, and a 24-Track Mixer. Our church went and got all COGIC on us! We didn't so much leave as just slowly stop attending. My parents didn't always agree with Pastor Connors sermons, but the idea of the church changing was too much. Later on, we heard some rather disturbing news about our old pastor.
I have a challenge for you.... How many of you completely agree with everything your pastor says and does? Should you then be held accountable for each and every action and word? Should you have to distance yourself from your pastor because you don't agree?
This is what the media is doing to Senator Obama- forcing him to denounce each and every statement by Rev. Wright, that seems to raise ANY controversy. Regardless (since irregardless is one of those nonsense non-words) of the absurdity of associating Obama with Wright's thoughts, the media is intent on finding controversy with Obama's campaign and plans for America. As if the whole Obama-as-asleeper-Muslim wasn't bad enough, the media has decided that Rev. Jeremiah Wright's words are enough to find Obama unfit to be President. If every candidate has dirt, the media is determined to make Wright Obama's. To take this one step further, the media is also determining that it is only going to apply this standard to Obama and Wright.
Case in point, read Frank Shaeffer's perspective on Huffington Post and digest it. He asks and answers some every key questions about this dust-up. Anyone remember Rev. Pat Robertson's suggestion on how the US should deal with Hugo Chavez? How about what these religious leaders had to say about Hurricane Katrina? Never mind that Robertson's organization benefited from Katrina. Yes, Rev. Wright mentioned 9/11, but so did others here. Yet we don't see the media scrutinizing McCain or Clinton based on statements of religious leaders that support them. BTW, the media did mention John Hagee's anti-Catholic comments, but stopped quickly. The media did not dig any deeper. If it did, Hagee might have to explain how pushing for Armageddon would be good for Jews if he feels they will all be destroyed in that conflict.
Crooksandliars is on it as well.
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Double Standard
I could have called this post "New Rules for Black People Running for President", but thought about the real problem- a double standard. Tim Russert asked Barack Obama to repudiate and denounce Louis Farrakhan, but he as yet to denounce and repudiate Don Imus. Yes, THAT Imus. Russert had been a regular Imus in the Morning guest prior to Imus' comments about the Rutgers Basketball Team. Russert was recently on Imus' new show on ABC Radio. So, it's tough for him to distance himself from Imus. Imus offended African Americans, he attacked a group of young women who were doing what they should be doing- trying to better themselves through education. I have a lot of respect for student athletes, and Imus is a complete ass for attacking them. Kudos to Gwen Iffil for biding her time to strike back at Imus for his comments about her. Oh yeah, I was talking about Russert.... So Tim manages to use the last Democratic Debate to attack Obama about an unsolicited endorsement.
Couple the Russert push for Obama to denounce and repudiate Louis Farrakhan with other issues that have come up in this campaign and we have a clear pattern of Democrats, especially Senator Obama being held to a much higher standard. It wasn't enough for Obama to say that he did not ask or want Farrakhan's endorsement, but he needed to repudiate Farrakhan. Was McCain asked to repudiate John Hagee?
Here's the deal, black people in high-profile positions are consistently made to answer for the actions of everyone around them. Obama's church Trinity United has been under the microscope and criticized for Black Family Values. People are upset over the word "black", and the doctrine that recognizes and supports Africa. When you read the doctrine, it is actually what so many commentators from O'Reilly to Cosby have said Black people should do- support your families, build strong communities and do the right thing. The problem is that the doctrine also calls for people to be politically-active and socially-responsible. The idea is for people to hold their political leaders and everyone else accountable. Oh yeah, support Africa.
Trinity is a cornerstone of its community. I grew up a few miles from Trinity. The neighborhood around that church has benefited from the church's prosperity. The community has grown as the church has. Unlike so many megachurches, Trinity has done much to uplift the community in which it resides.
Couple the Russert push for Obama to denounce and repudiate Louis Farrakhan with other issues that have come up in this campaign and we have a clear pattern of Democrats, especially Senator Obama being held to a much higher standard. It wasn't enough for Obama to say that he did not ask or want Farrakhan's endorsement, but he needed to repudiate Farrakhan. Was McCain asked to repudiate John Hagee?
Here's the deal, black people in high-profile positions are consistently made to answer for the actions of everyone around them. Obama's church Trinity United has been under the microscope and criticized for Black Family Values. People are upset over the word "black", and the doctrine that recognizes and supports Africa. When you read the doctrine, it is actually what so many commentators from O'Reilly to Cosby have said Black people should do- support your families, build strong communities and do the right thing. The problem is that the doctrine also calls for people to be politically-active and socially-responsible. The idea is for people to hold their political leaders and everyone else accountable. Oh yeah, support Africa.
Trinity is a cornerstone of its community. I grew up a few miles from Trinity. The neighborhood around that church has benefited from the church's prosperity. The community has grown as the church has. Unlike so many megachurches, Trinity has done much to uplift the community in which it resides.
Race, Sex, Religion and the 2008 Presidential Campaign
Before the start of the primaries, we were treated to many inches of newsprint and hours of video of political types analyzing whether African American Women would support Clinton or Obama, whether Whites would support Obama and etc. We were subjected to stories of Hilary's choice of clothing and her laugh. Barack's church doctrine and pastor have been scrutinized. There have been no such stories regarding Republican candidates. The closest story has been the NYT article on McCain, and even the core of that story is related to how a lobbyist seemed to have influence over McCain.
Yes, it is 2008, but race, sex, and religion still do matter. Now that the Democratic Primary is down to nominating a Woman or African American, it's starting to set in for some people. It's frightening to some to think that this country might be run by someone that is not White or Male, to that end, they are starting to respond in racist and sexist ways. Read this article about comments made by Gov Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania regarding race.
The media is not helping. The meme is Obama wins states with large African American populations- that's his base, while Clinton wins states with large Blue Collar White populations. Yet, that storyline is not supported by Obama's wins. Check out the Census Bureau's Quick Facts regarding Nebraska- a state that Obama won easily. Nebraska, like Iowa is very White, and very Blue Collar, yet people turned out in huge numbers to support Democrats, and Obama in particular. Yes, Obama won D.C., but he also won Idaho!
When Obama was on 60 Minutes last year, he stated that an Obama Administration would open a dialog with Iran and revamp Healthcare. Instead of criticizing Obama for his positions, Limbaugh, Morgan, Beck and others attacked him for being- 1) too black for white voters, 2) too white for black voters, and 3) being too Muslim for Christians. To argue about his positions and proposed policies would get away from the easy attack line of race and raise the level of political discourse in this country.
Think about it....
Yes, it is 2008, but race, sex, and religion still do matter. Now that the Democratic Primary is down to nominating a Woman or African American, it's starting to set in for some people. It's frightening to some to think that this country might be run by someone that is not White or Male, to that end, they are starting to respond in racist and sexist ways. Read this article about comments made by Gov Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania regarding race.
The media is not helping. The meme is Obama wins states with large African American populations- that's his base, while Clinton wins states with large Blue Collar White populations. Yet, that storyline is not supported by Obama's wins. Check out the Census Bureau's Quick Facts regarding Nebraska- a state that Obama won easily. Nebraska, like Iowa is very White, and very Blue Collar, yet people turned out in huge numbers to support Democrats, and Obama in particular. Yes, Obama won D.C., but he also won Idaho!
When Obama was on 60 Minutes last year, he stated that an Obama Administration would open a dialog with Iran and revamp Healthcare. Instead of criticizing Obama for his positions, Limbaugh, Morgan, Beck and others attacked him for being- 1) too black for white voters, 2) too white for black voters, and 3) being too Muslim for Christians. To argue about his positions and proposed policies would get away from the easy attack line of race and raise the level of political discourse in this country.
Think about it....
Putting the Shoe on the Other Foot...
Below is a partial transcript of Hilary Clinton's 60 Minutes Interview lifted from ABCNews' Political Punch:
As far as I know would be an acceptable answer in most situations. In the context of this campaign, this response just is not good enough.
STEVE KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?
HILLARY CLINTON: Of course not. I mean that's, you know, that, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says, and, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim...
CLINTON: Right, right..
KROFT: …you don't believe that he's a Muslim.
CLINTON: No! No! Why would I? There's nothing to base that on. As far as I know.
The Obama-as-a-super-secret-sleeper-Muslim is more than a year old, and has been thoroughly debunked. CNN, Washinton Post, New York Times, and numerous other media outlets have beat this smear to near-death, but like all good smears, it rises again and again. Senator Clinton could have put it to rest, but chose a qualified answer that again helps fuel the smear.As far as I know would be an acceptable answer in most situations. In the context of this campaign, this response just is not good enough.
Catching up on the Swag
Whew! Blogging requires time to, well, blog. Time to catch up on some things political that have been on my mind.....
Monday, March 3, 2008
Political Swagger
Politics has always been strange to me. I grew up in Chicago- a city known for the Democratic Machine. Dems ran (and still run) the city, but unlike the days of old, the Voting Machines aren't fixed, and the underdog can win.
So my political swagger started the day my high school was invaded by Jesse Jackson, Todd Bridges and Stoney Jackson. Now, Todd was between Rehab and Jail. Stoney was just getting into the heavy Eyeliner, and Rev. Jackson was gearing up to make a run at the White House. Sounds like a strange combination of characters, but it worked. These were the people that delivered unto me my first taste of political power and swagger.
The goal was to get all of us 18 year old Seniors to register to vote. We did. What happened next was well, historic. We were part of a huge wave of new black voters in Chicago, and we helped elect the first black mayor of Chicago. Don't know his name? It's Harold Washington. Now Mayor Washington's run broke the hold of the Machine in Chicago. He was not the establishment's candidate and spent his first term in office fighting with those who refused to accept him as mayor.
What Harold Washington managed to do was give the African American community in Chicago something to feel great about. He symbolized the power of the people to move the system forward. You see, this was my first taste of "Yes We Can", only it was "Run Harold Run!"
So my political swagger started the day my high school was invaded by Jesse Jackson, Todd Bridges and Stoney Jackson. Now, Todd was between Rehab and Jail. Stoney was just getting into the heavy Eyeliner, and Rev. Jackson was gearing up to make a run at the White House. Sounds like a strange combination of characters, but it worked. These were the people that delivered unto me my first taste of political power and swagger.
The goal was to get all of us 18 year old Seniors to register to vote. We did. What happened next was well, historic. We were part of a huge wave of new black voters in Chicago, and we helped elect the first black mayor of Chicago. Don't know his name? It's Harold Washington. Now Mayor Washington's run broke the hold of the Machine in Chicago. He was not the establishment's candidate and spent his first term in office fighting with those who refused to accept him as mayor.
What Harold Washington managed to do was give the African American community in Chicago something to feel great about. He symbolized the power of the people to move the system forward. You see, this was my first taste of "Yes We Can", only it was "Run Harold Run!"
Monday Ramblings....
I always have these random musings that run through my head over the weekend. Case in point,
why is Barack Obama being made to answer for Louis Farrakhan's unsolicited endorsement and John McCain is not for John Hagee's solicited one? If Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, how will she be able to then support Obama?
why is Barack Obama being made to answer for Louis Farrakhan's unsolicited endorsement and John McCain is not for John Hagee's solicited one? If Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, how will she be able to then support Obama?
GMSB Episode 2: Telling Mrs. Swagger
So after the initial shock of getting the bad (good) news, I had to go home and inform my wife. I have a short commute between work and home, and my mind was racing the entire time. As usual, the kids were excited to see me. My wife noticed the strange look on my face, and asked, "What happened? Did you get fired?"
Gotta love a telepathic spouse.........
Gotta love a telepathic spouse.........
Friday, February 29, 2008
GMSB Episode 1: Swagger Lost
Approximately one year, one week and three days ago my swagger got jacked.
Through chance and choice I was about to be out of work. Since the choice was made by others in positions of power I had no chance of staying. The funny thing about academia is the unique way you can be fired without being immediately having armed security walk you to the back door and pitch you out on your ass. So I was officially released and since I wasn't molesting, shooting or experimenting on the faculty, students or staff, I was given the option of staying one more year.
That was the day my swagger was lost.....
Through chance and choice I was about to be out of work. Since the choice was made by others in positions of power I had no chance of staying. The funny thing about academia is the unique way you can be fired without being immediately having armed security walk you to the back door and pitch you out on your ass. So I was officially released and since I wasn't molesting, shooting or experimenting on the faculty, students or staff, I was given the option of staying one more year.
That was the day my swagger was lost.....
First-time Poster
Why blog about swagger? Well, the world runs on it. Self-confidence is the cornerstone of too many operations today. Bear with me as I attempt to make the case for Swaggerdom.
Barack Obama's campaign inspires and excites crowds with the refrain of YES WE CAN! What can we do? We can change the world by believing we can. That may sound strange, but the first step to doing something is believing you CAN do it. That confidence in the ability of a person, or group, to affect change is central to success.
Swagger is self-confidence. It is an outward expression of the belief that you can. It doesn't have to mean you're bragging and boasting about your abilities. For me, it means projecting a quiet confidence in your ability to do what you put your mind to doing.
Barack Obama's campaign inspires and excites crowds with the refrain of YES WE CAN! What can we do? We can change the world by believing we can. That may sound strange, but the first step to doing something is believing you CAN do it. That confidence in the ability of a person, or group, to affect change is central to success.
Swagger is self-confidence. It is an outward expression of the belief that you can. It doesn't have to mean you're bragging and boasting about your abilities. For me, it means projecting a quiet confidence in your ability to do what you put your mind to doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
