Dropping Out Of Sight

Due to my belief in the value of education and my concern that we are at a defining moment in American educational history, particularly for minority students I wanted to do a follow-up to my recent essay, “The Students Aren’t Failing, We Are”. Because the stakes and the cost of failure are so high, I want to continue to press this issue. The importance of this issue transcends race, gender, and economics, because the cost of failing to educate these children will be borne by all of us. It will be borne out in higher crime, higher social service costs, and higher taxes. It will also over time cost us billions of dollars in loss productivity and could result in catastrophic costs for rebuilding cities torched by rioters and looters. The thing about America is that ignoring issues and problems has always been amenable to confrontation and action until it explodes into violence and rage. Then the media creates these nice little banners and theme music wondering what went wrong and why are these people so angry.

One of the topics that is currently not being discussed within the “No Child Left Behind” debate is the drop-outs and what can we do about it. We discuss test scores and assessments for schools, teachers, and administrators, but nothing about the graduation rates. It is incumbent on the black community to come to grips with this epidemic, because the fall-out will affect us first and the hardest. One of the first casualties of means testing and assessments is the failing student and despite current popular belief the main reason students drop out is because they are failing. No one wants to continue in a circumstance that they feel they are failing in with no chance of turning it around, especially if there is little or no support to complete the task anyway.

We know that there are warning signs that indicate students are at risk for dropping out, but due to the fact that so many of our schools in the inner-city are so crowded and place so much emphasis on assessments they are often times ignored and allowed to slip through the cracks. Throw in the fact that many failing students are also troubled students and there is even less effort made to prevent their departure. Unfortunately, because of the over-crowding of our inner-city schools and the emphasis on school assessment performance it seems like there is a built in percentage of students who will be sacrificed for the greater good or the larger number of students. The scores of drop-outs do not affect the overall score for the school’s certification, so if failing students drop-out the test scores of the remaining students may actually improve on paper. If this were a small percentage of students, there could be an argument for justification or evidence of its effectiveness. In the case of too many of our schools the numbers are reversed, there are more students dropping out than graduating.

The research report, released yesterday by the Philadelphia Youth Network, has significant implications for how cities can effectively use their resources to encourage more students to stay in school. According to Neild and Balfanz:

* Most future dropouts can be identified before or early in the first year of high school. For example, eighth- graders who miss five weeks of school or fail math or English have at least a 75 percent chance of dropping out of high school. And in the Philadelphia district, as with most districts with a dropout challenge, many future dropouts attend a subset of high schools that often are overwhelmed by the sheer number of students in need of intensive intervention.

* Most dropouts leave school because they are not attending regularly and are failing courses — a finding that counters the common interpretation of the landmark Silent Epidemic report that suggested that most students drop out because they are bored and not challenged.

* Most dropouts are not involved with social service agencies, but those who are have extremely high dropout rates. For high school students who have been abused and neglected, are in foster care or receive an out-of-home placement in the juvenile justice system, the probability of dropping out is 75 percent or higher. Likewise, having a child before or during high school dramatically increased the chances that female students would drop out. This finding comes from the first analysis of individual school and social service records, and suggests that current social service/juvenile justice supports are not strong enough to enable adolescents in their charge to graduate.[1]

These findings are from a report done by John Hopkins University and provide us with clear signs of impending disaster. Of course recognizing a problem is only half of the solution, the next question is are we willing to intervene in these circumstances to avoid their predicted outcome? Here, we are able to see the future and if we want to we can change the future for these kids. It is not like we don’t already know what the life of a high school drop-out will be like.

The nation’s economy and competitive standing also suffers when there are high dropout rates. Among developed countries, the United States ranks seventeenth in high school graduation rates and fourteenth in college graduation rates (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2006). Dropouts represent a tremendous waste of human potential and productivity, and reduce the nation’s ability to compete in an increasingly global economy.

High school graduates, on the other hand, provide both economic and social benefits to society. In addition to earning higher wages, which results in attendant benefits to local, state, and national economic conditions, high school graduates live longer (Muennig, 2005), are less likely to be teen parents (Haveman et al., 2001), and are more likely to raise healthier, better-educated children. In fact, children of parents who graduate from high school are themselves far more likely to graduate from high school than are children of parents without a high school degree (Wolfe & Haveman, 2002). High school graduates are also less likely to commit crimes (Raphael, 2004), rely on government health care (Muennig, 2005), or use other public services such as food stamps or housing assistance (Garfinkel et al., 2005). Additionally, high school graduates engage in civic activity, including voting and volunteering in their communities, at higher levels (Junn, 2005).[2]

Intervention is the key. We must realize that drop-outs drop out of more than school; many of them drop out of society as productive members as well. As with most problems we face as a nation the upfront costs will always be less than the backend cost of reducing our drop-out rates. The truth is these drop-outs do not drop out of sight, they come back and create an enormous strain on society.

[1] http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home06/oct06/dropout.html
[2] http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:_XM10e-TaYMJ:www.all4ed.org/files/HighCost.pdf+high+school+drop+out+costs&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

Read more!

Africa In The Raw

Africa is a continent known for its vast natural beauty and resources, but also for its abject poverty. For many African countries the journey from colony to full-fledge nation has been a perilous one. Because of its vast size and diversity of cultures, Africa to many is an enigma. How can a continent with so much natural resources and raw materials continue to suffer from crushing poverty and hunger? Africa has suffered and continues to suffer from the same problem that doomed the Native Americans, there is too much tribalism. By the time the Native Americans became a cohesive force the battle was already lost. Africa suffers from a lack of unity.

This is not to say that external forces have not wrecked havoc on Africa. The colonialism of the West has had devastating effects on the African psyche. It has bred a culture of distrust and animosity between those who share a common history and a common future. A future that could be bright for all of its people, if there were more unity. Africa not only needs unity between nations, but just as importantly unity within nations. There are too many civil wars involving tribalism, sects and clans. As long as there is division there can be no progress. A house divided cannot stand. It is time for unity in Africa. Some sort of loose confederation of states united in purpose, with the goal of reducing poverty and increasing opportunity for all Africans.

For Africa to overcome its many problems the West must begin to shift from the current attitude of assistance to one that will allow Africa to begin to compete on a global scale. Currently, the West is providing Africa with its own subsidized agricultural products flooding the local markets with cheap products and driving down prices for local farmers. While keeping the local markets depressed they in turn refuse to allow the African access to their markets, thus perpetuating a cycle of poverty. We must begin to rethink how we provide aid and how we promote prosperity in Africa. By supplying Africa with these surplus products we are not allowing the local people or the countries from developing their own markets or exporting to international markets.

If the world is truly serious about helping Africa develop, then some tough choices have to be made in how they do business. We need to begin to move from just sustaining populations to the process of developing populations. We ship over all this aid, but how are we helping to develop their futures. Are we only postponing the inevitable and actually adding more misery to the people we claim to be trying to help. If the land cannot sustain the people that are there now, why are we creating more people to live on the land? If a land is uninhabitable shipping food in will not solve that problem. It may be a good short-term solution and look good on those charity infomercials, but it is not providing these people with the long-term solutions they need.

The industrialized nations have to stop trying to solve the hunger problem by dumping its subsidized products on the Africans. While this provides a short-term solution and allows them to claim they are helping to fight global hunger, but the reality is they are perpetuating more hunger in the future. These nations must begin to take a more long-term view of developing Africa and the leaders of Africa must begin to create the environment for growth and development. This has to begin with an end to tribalism, tribalism is what allows the rest of the world to camouflage their racism and to continue to treat Africa as a third-class world citizen. Freedom for all African citizens must become a reality for true development to take place.

We must begin to throw off the last vestiges of colonialism, which is being played out in African versus African violence. Ethnic cleansing and tribal devotion has to give way to national and continental development and freedom. Africa has the resources to surpass India or China’s economic development, the question is do they have the will and the leadership. They need for the leadership to unite Africa for the benefit of all Africans, as well as the pride and development of the Africans living abroad. We Africans that were taken into bondage all over the world and those who have chosen to live abroad can never have complete equality and freedom until Africa once again takes it rightful place in the world. As long as Africa remains weak and divided, we will continue to be treated as less than by the rest of the world. Africa must once again regain its educational and economic leadership position in the world for the benefit of all Africans.

It is time to invest not only money in Africa, but talent and knowledge. The current trend appears to be to export the raw materials and manufacture the goods someplace else, but until goods are manufactured in Africa, by Africans the cycle of poverty will never be broken. The development of Africa can only occur when Africans gathering the raw materials begin manufacturing finished products, and exporting those products. The cycle of industrialized development must follow this process. Africa must be given the tools and the capital to develop its markets both in agricultural and manufacturing, without the development of those two key areas we will not have enough surplus food to sustain them.

Read more!

Al Sharpton; Racist Redeemer

Every time I think he can’t stoop any lower, the Reverend Al Sharpton shows me how wrong I am. Why is it that white America has to have a symbolic racial redeemer for their overt sins of racism when they become public? If someone publically offends a Jew, they bring out the Jewish redeemer. If they offend an Arab, they roll-out the Arab redeemer and so on and so on. It is as if this redeemer will provide them with a collective act of contrition and then we can all go back to being friends again, until the next “slip of the tongue”. For the black community, the self-appointed and media accepted redeemers are the Reverend Jesse Jackson and the Reverend Al Sharpton.

My question is who in the black community appointed either one of these gentlemen to these roles? Was there a referendum that I missed or some memo that I failed to open or what? It is precisely because of these two and those “so-called leaders” that the state of racial conversation in this country has not progressed past Dr. King. There has been no one articulate enough, not for whites, but someone who could communicate the black experience in any meaningful way for blacks. The black experience in this country has changed so much and now is so diverse that it is ridiculous for anyone to promote a single person as speaking for an entire race of people. Even when Dr. King was alive, there were other voices articulating the diversity that is our community.

The latest racist needing redemption and confessional time from the good Reverend is Duane "Dog" Chapman, a minor celebrity who has parlayed a grimy career in the bounty hunter business into a “reality show” on the A&E network. It seems that the “Dog” was very upset with his son for dating a black woman and had a few choice words for him in that regard. In a racially charged tirade Mr. Chapman let his displeasure be known. In a story that was broken by the National Enquirer, that’s right, the conversation was posted on line at their website. It seems Mr. Chapman thought his son’s girlfriend was trying to record him using the N-word and it turns out his son was the culprit. Kids, huh!

DUANE “DOG” CHAPMAN is the latest celebrity begging for forgiveness and promising to meet with “black leaders” to “make things right again” for using a racial slur during a taped private conversation with his son that was later leaked to the National Enquirer. The star of A&E’s “Dog the Bounty Hunter” issued a statement the other day apologizing for using the n-word in reference to his son’s girlfriend, who is black. Apologizing, Chapman insists the clip, posted on the Enquirer’s Web site, was taken out of context.[1]

Now here is where the story gets crazy, Mr. Chapman has asked Al Sharpton for help in rehabilitating his image, aka Don Imus, Bill O’Reilly, and whoever else feels compelled to voice their true racial feelings publically and then need to institute damage control. To me this is what has to change for any meaningful conversations about race in this country to take place, the practice of honesty followed by denial. If these are your true feelings be man enough to state them and stand behind them. As long as we continue to pretend that there is racial harmony and tolerance when we know there isn’t we will never get past the hypocrisy.

This blanket immunity and forgiveness bestowed by Jesse or Al must stop. How any self-respecting black man, let alone a “preacher” could allow himself to be compromised by these self-gratifying displays of remorse are beyond my comprehension. How arrogant and presumptuous of them to think they can assuage the outrage of a race of people by “counseling” the offender for a small fee is insulting to all blacks.

The issue here for me is the not the use of the N-word by a bigot who obviously uses it with great regularity or the fact that he feels compelled to do so, to me he is at least being honest. What bothers me more is the dishonesty of these two “so-called” black leaders continued self-aggrandizement at the expense of the rest of us. We cannot afford to have the establishment and the media define for us who will represent our outrage or who will lead us. We should collectively begin a writing campaign to CNN, NY Times, and all of the other media outlets who continue to use these charlatans as spokespersons. As long as we passively accept the de facto arrangement it will continue and these two will continue to line their pockets at the expense of any real progress in racial matters.

Does it bother me that another white man in the public eye has found it necessary to use the N-word? Of course it does, but what bothers me more is when I am walking, standing, or riding on the bus and hear other young black men shouting it out to each other. I may be a dreamer, but I believe that if we had had any true leadership on a national level a lot of these conversations wouldn’t even be taking place. That hopefully we would have begun the long overdue national conversation about race and would have made some progress or at least come to some sort of truce. Instead we are left with the remnants of days gone by and the old reliable: I make racial slurs, but I am not a racist argument. I understand the lines of racial tolerance and sensitivity are forever shifting. What was acceptable yesterday is not today. Sort of like the dilemma of how blacks want to be referred to: black, African-American, or what.

Without communication on a national level by those who are willing to be honest and not looking for self promotion, we will have little chance of making any inroads into this issue. An issue that in itself is an enigma, while most blacks think it is an important issue in everyday life, most whites think the opposite. So enough of the racist redeemers and let’s have a real conversation.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-11-01-chapman-tape_N.htm?csp=34

Read more!

Going Above And Beyond

In a stunning defeat for the US Government’s war on the financing of terrorism, a federal judge declared a mistrial when the jury could not reach a verdict in the case. The case began in 2001 when President Bush froze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation of Relief and Development for what he described as fundraising for Hamas. According to the government, the organization was a front for Hamas and that it was secretly controlled by Hamas which the US has declared a terrorist organization.

DALLAS, Oct. 22 — A federal judge declared a mistrial on Monday in what was widely seen as the government’s flagship terrorism-financing case after prosecutors failed to persuade a jury to convict five leaders of a Muslim charity on any charges, or even to reach a verdict on many of the 197 counts.

The case, involving the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five of its backers, is the government’s largest and most complex legal effort to shut down what it contends is American financing for terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

The case involved 197 counts, including providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. It also involved years of investigation and preparation, almost two months of testimony and more than 1,000 exhibits, including documents, wiretaps, transcripts and videotapes dug up in a backyard in Virginia.[1]

The government’s case was primarily smoke and mirrors provided by the Israelis who had wanted the organization shut down for political reasons. After all, they were building hospitals and taking care of orphan Palestinian children for God’s sake. The government had accused the group of providing material support to Hamas and funding terrorism. As one juror stated the case was weak on facts and strong on innuendo. The government has gotten to the point where if they mention the word terrorists or terrorism they expect the US people to cower and assent to whatever the government wants.

While this is a victory for the defendants in this case, it is also a victory for the American public. It seems that we as a nation are starting to finally come out of the haze of 9/11 with its fear and unquestioned loyalty and are now saying enough is enough. The politics of fear and divisiveness has run its course. Anyone foolish enough to try to run on those terms in this election cycle is going to be sadly mistaken and I predict soundly defeated. It is time we as a nation moved past 9/11 and the era of Bush and his Neo-Con cronies and begin to rebuild our faith and trust in each other and in the world.

Despite popular belief everyone in the world does not hate America, they hate what we allowed America to become under these wing-nuts. I guarantee that if we are willing to move beyond 9/11, the world will once again embrace us with open arms. Does that mean that the terrorists will stop targeting America? Of course not, but we will begin to enlist the support of the world again which is important because we cannot win this fight alone. All people seeking true freedom must rely on each other to overcome the forces of tyranny that have hijacked the country after 9/11.

David D. Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, said the jury’s verdict called into question the government’s tactics in freezing the assets of charities using secret evidence that the charities cannot see, much less rebut. When, at trial, prosecutors “have to put their evidence on the table, they can’t convict anyone of anything,” he said. “It suggests the government is really pushing beyond where the law justifies them going.”

And Jimmy Gurulé, who was an under secretary of the Treasury when that agency froze Holy Land’s assets, described the outcome as “the continuation of what I now see as a trend of disappointing legal defeats” in terror-financing cases. Two previous cases, in Illinois and in Florida, ended with hung juries and relatively minor plea deals, he said.[2]

The time has come for the American courts to begin curtailing the overreach in authority by the government that has occurred post 9/11. I would never want to see another terrorist attack anywhere and especially in America, but the thing I admire about other countries who live with the threat daily is they continue to function in spite of the threat. They accept the threat for what it is, but they continue to go about their business despite it. The threat to America is real; the response to the threat is not. Allowing the government to over step its boundaries under the pretext of national security is wrong, it was wrong in the past and it is wrong today.

I would expect the government to try and push beyond their scope, but what I didn’t expect was for so many Americans to give in without a fight. I guess the truth be told, we really don’t have a clue how democracy works. This is sad, that after 300 years one day, one event could cause so many to give up their freedoms so quickly. How could the voices of freedom go silent in the face of tyranny? I applaud the juries that are not allowing the government to railroad innocents and ruin lives. It’s funny that whenever a government case goes before a jury, the results are never what they expect. The average American has more courage and more common sense than those clowns on Capitol Hill, who are suppose to be protecting us and yet continue to kowtow to the bullies in the White House.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/us/23charity.html
[2] Ibid.

Read more!

Blackwater Highlights Bigger Issue In Iraq

The incident with the Blackwater Security Corporation in Iraq has been well documented. I certainly would not want to retrace the many stories detailing the charges and counter-charges. The Iraqis have completed their investigation and have concluded the attack against the civilians was unprovoked. The government of Iraq has asked the State Department to remove Blackwater from Iraq. It seems that the government of Iraq is tired of having its citizens being used for target practice for trigger happy mercs. This case and the findings of the Iraqi investigation brings up what I believe is the crux of the problem in Iraq. I think it is why the Iraqis have not worked harder at resolving their differences and trying to meet the benchmarks set up by the US.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Iraqi investigation into last month's Blackwater USA shooting is complete, and it proves that the private contractors committed unprovoked and random killings in the incident, an adviser to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Tuesday.

Adviser Sami al-Askari told CNN al-Maliki has asked the U.S. State Department to "pull Blackwater out of Iraq."

Al-Askari said the United States is still waiting for the findings of the American investigation, but the Iraqi leader and most Iraqi officials are "completely satisfied" with the findings of their probe and are "insisting" that Blackwater leave the country.[1]

The fly in the ointment is sovereignty. The Bush Administration is big on talking about Iraqi sovereignty, but the truth of the matter is they don’t have any. This administration talks about how they are the guest of the Iraqi government and that government can request the US to leave at anytime, but this is false. Here is a government under occupation; they can’t even prosecute the random murders of 17 of their citizens. The government can’t kick the perpetrators out of the country and so they appear impotent and unable to protect their citizenry.

The government on the other hand refuses to honor any timetable placed upon them by the US. Their only form of protest is to delay reconciliation and prolong the conflict. So you have the government we put in place fighting against the aims of our government. What is rarely reported on by the US media is the pride of the Iraqi people, that pride has been repeatedly ravaged by our insensitivity to their culture, their women, and their religion.

The government of Prime Minister al-Maliki is caught between a rock and a hard place, on the one hand they have the Americans dictating that they must meet this goal or that and then they have their people who want and expect them to show independence from the occupiers. The next election, if we get that far will be a real eye opener for Washington whoever is President. I have a feeling the Iraqi people are going to send a clear message to Washington by electing a nationalistic candidate, a candidate who will distance himself from the US and demand the removal of US troops. By our refusal to allow the al-Maliki government the semblance of sovereignty we are setting the stage for the next radical leader to ascend to the throne. You cannot continue to stick your thumb into the eye of your host and not expect there to be a backlash.

The blowback of the Iraqi people will take the form of a conservative Islamic militant leader, who will play to the Iraqis desire to remove the US occupying army. The one thing most Iraqis agree upon, whether they are Sunnis or Shia is the desire to have the US troops gone. The next leader will campaign on the weakness of this government and its inability to rein in not only US troops, but US civilians as well. The rage of the Iraqi people is seething just below the surface and is never reported by the US press, so to most Americans the results will come as a surprise and they will view the Iraqis as ungrateful and uncivilized. Because of the lack of security the US press doesn’t have a real sense of the mood of the Iraqi people; it is pretty difficult to gauge the mood of the average Iraqi from behind the Green Zone barricades.

The problem with Iraq is even if we accomplish our goals, we still lose. Eventually the “warm welcome” we have received will turn sour and no matter how big or secure our embassy will be it won’t be able to withstand the will of the Iraqi people. Once again we will overplay our hand and overstay our welcome and the end will be worse than the beginning. Instead of having a secular government open to relations we will have a fanatical Islamist in power who will overturn all of our “progressive” agenda and return Iraq to another Middle Eastern theocracy. How’s that for a legacy Mr. Bush and your Neo-Con friends?

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.blackwater/index.html

Read more!

Torture No Longer Taboo

As the Attorney General nominee was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was questioned repeatedly about the use of the technique known as waterboarding and whether he considered it legal. Judge Michael B. Mukasey, the nominee continued to avoid giving a legal opinion on the practice. According to legal experts, he had no choice but to avoid the rendering of an opinion because of the legal ramifications of the Attorney General calling the practice illegal. By doing so of course he would open the floodgates of litigation from detainees that have been subjected to the practice. For all practical purposes let’s acknowledge that this practice constitutes torture.

So the real question is, does the Judge condone torture or not? Forget the legal semantics; I think the American people need to know whether their next Attorney General will continue giving legal cover to this administration for the practice of torture? The truth of the matter is that we won’t get an answer to that question and neither will the Senate. No nominee will ever provide such damning testimony against the person who nominated them. If the AG were to acknowledge the illegality of the practice, everyone would be liable all the way up to Mr. Bush himself.

The biggest problem for Mr. Mukasey remains his refusal to take a clear legal position on the interrogation technique. Fear of opening the door to criminal or civil liability for torture or abuse, whether in an American court or in courts overseas, appeared to loom large in Mr. Mukasey’s calculations as he parried questions from the committee this week. Some legal experts suggested that liability could go all the way to President Bush if he explicitly authorized waterboarding.[1]

So, now the question is no longer whether the nominee supports torture, the debate has now been refocused to political cover for those who authorized the torture. How will we ever know if this nominee supports the legal precedence or not? How do we know if he will cave into the political pressure as the previous occupant did or will stand firm against such practices? It appears another legacy of this administration will be that we can no longer ask our AG nominees their views on torture, or this form of it anyway. If they answer, it could be used to open prosecutions of past administration officials. Once you open the door to torture, I guess there’s no turning back.

Scott L. Silliman, an expert on national security law at Duke University School of Law, said any statement by Mr. Mukasey that waterboarding was illegal torture “would open up Pandora’s box,” even in the United States. Such a statement from an attorney general would override existing Justice Department legal opinions and create intense pressure from human rights groups to open a criminal investigation of interrogation practices, Mr. Silliman said.[2]

Then of course there are the international courts, which we have no problem bringing other despots in front of, but disavow their jurisdictions when our despots are accused of wrongdoing. This was demonstrated when Donald H. Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense was visiting France and had to make a hasty retreat when a criminal complaint was filed against him for torture by human rights groups. Because of our public entry into the torture arena the concept of “universal jurisdiction” for war crimes and torture is no longer in play. The US which once stood as a bulwark for human rights and continues to make allegations against other countries (Iran most recently) is now displaying its hypocrisy in full view of the world.

Mr. Specter, who said he was briefed on the interrogation issue this week by the C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, noted that human rights groups had filed a criminal complaint on torture against Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, while he was visiting France this month. Such cases, based on the legal concept of “universal jurisdiction” for torture and certain other crimes, have proliferated in recent years, though they have often posed more of an aggravation than a serious threat.[3]

With no threat of prosecution and with the former watchdog now engaged in the practice, what is to prevent every nation from participating? So now not only can we thank this administration for shredding the US Constitution, we can also include the dismantling of the Geneva Convention treaty. Who needs communism and fascism, we have neo-conservatism and it is a whole lot more effective at dispensing with those inconvenient human and civil rights.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/washington/01mukasey.html?hp
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.

Read more!

Is Hillary The Best Candidate?

Hillary Clinton made the case at the latest Democratic debate that she was the best candidate because the Republicans hate her. I got to thinking about the rationale behind this logic and whether it holds up to scrutiny. True enough the candidate the Republicans talk about the most is Hillary, at their last debate her name came up more than even the war in Iraq. Is that because she is the frontrunner or because she is the most formidable candidate or something else entirely? If the Republicans attack you the most does that mean they fear you the most, as Hillary depicts or is it as Obama and Edwards stated, it is because they believe she is the most unelectable candidate? In my opinion it is a little of all of these.

Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama almost stumbled over each other in offering a different interpretation of the Republican attacks on Mrs. Clinton than the one she offered.

“Part of the reason that Republicans, I think, are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that’s a fight they’re very comfortable having,” Mr. Obama said. “It is the fight that we’ve been through since the ’90s. And part of the job of the next president is to break the gridlock and to get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together to solve these big problems.”

Mr. Edwards offered a similar line of attack. “I mean, another perspective on why the Republicans keep talking about Senator Clinton is, Senator, she — they may actually want to run against you, and that’s the reason they keep bringing you up,” he said, adding, “I think that if people want the status quo — Senator Clinton’s your candidate. “[1]

Despite her baggage, Hillary Clinton will be a formidable candidate. According to the latest poll numbers she has the majority of democratic women and independent voters. While her unfavorable numbers are still high, she continues to consolidate her lead with democratic voters. The real unknown I think will be whether women will continue to support her in her efforts to write history and become the first woman commander in chief. So far according to the numbers, they are solidly in her camp. The other question is will Republican and independent women crossover to support her bid?

I think part of the reason that the Republicans are attacking Senator Clinton is because she is the frontrunner and appears to be her party’s nominee. They are laying the groundwork of what will be the most contentious general election ever. It’s funny how every general election is becoming the most contentious and negative campaigns on record. I wonder if we will ever return to civil elections or even if we ever had any? Plus, attacking Hillary is a cash cow for Republicans, just the mention of her name gets the wing-nuts blood boiling. Much of the venom and hatred from the far-right appears to be irrational, but could be damaging during a close general election.

I think another reason for the attacks is the far-right believes that Hillary’s negatives will be too much for her to overcome and they sense a real weakness. I think that the wing-nuts are overplaying their hand on this issue and that Senator Clinton’s negative numbers will shrink significantly enough by November to do less damage than they presume. I also believe that a lot of the negative ads will backfire against Senator Clinton with women voters, many of whom will view them differently when aimed at a woman versus a man. I think that the Senator is savvy enough to use this to her advantage during the campaign. Many of the wing-nuts do view her as their best chance candidate to keep the White House and I think a lot of the pundits and talking heads have been trying to either plant positive Hillary stories or demonize her to ensure she gets the nomination.

The real issue for the Party and the progressive net-roots community will be is Senator Clinton our best chance to win? There are two months before the first voting starts and we begin to find out. I am curious, if Senator Clinton is the nominee, will the Party and net-roots rally around her and support her candidacy or will there be a voter backlash? Even though she is not my first choice, I would support the senator over any Republican candidate. I believe the majority of Americans will do likewise. I don’t believe there is anything in Hillary’s negatives that remotely compares to the negatives currently held by the Republicans and their continued support for the bankrupt policies of Bush.

While I believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency won’t be as unifying as maybe some other candidates, I do believe she will be a step down the road that will lead to a real progressive candidate. Until enough people get tired of the same old crap, the same old crap will stay on the menu. So, is Hillary Clinton the best candidate? Probably no, but she could be a lot worse.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/us/politics/31debate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Read more!