They Just Don’t Get It

“In record numbers, Americans voted on Tuesday for a skillful presidential nominee promising change, but "change" should not be confused with a license to raise taxes, drive up wasteful government spending, weaken our security, or give more power to Washington, Big Labor bosses and the trial bar. Americans did not vote for higher taxes to fund a redistribution of wealth; drastic cuts in funding for our troops; the end of secret ballots for workers participating in union elections; more costly obstacles to American energy production; or the imposition of government-run health care on employers and working families.”[1] – John Boehner

Did this guy see the same campaign and election that I saw? In the campaign that I saw President-elect Barack Obama laid out in no uncertain terms what his agenda was and what he wanted to accomplish. There were no hidden innuendos or code words; he stated as a matter of fact what he felt the government’s role was and how he planned to implement that role. And despite Mr. Boehner’s claims to the contrary, the majority of the American public voted to accept this candidate and his agenda. We have seen for the last two election cycles the electorate’s repudiation of the Republican ideas and their tactics and yet they continue to believe that nothing has changed. Many of them feel that the reason they lost was because they weren’t right of center enough. If this continues this Party will be replaced by another one and they will become strictly a regional and rural Party.

My belief is that the Republicans in the Congress are going to become obstructionists as they were during the 90’s. They are exposing to the American people that they are devoid of original thought and so rather than propose they merely condemn. In the current political climate I don’t think the people are going to be responsive to that type of politics. I just hope the Democrats do not respond to this election as they did after the 2006 election with fear and trepidation. If the Republicans goal is to remain adrift in the wilderness then this is the way to do it. Mr. Boehner wrote of Republican ideas to solve the economic crisis but from what I and many of my fellow citizens heard trickledown economics is not going to sell. I think the majority of people are tired of being trickled on, I know I am.

Maybe I am crazy but I thought if you ran on a platform and you won by an impressive margin then you get to enact that platform. Mr. Boehner obviously feels that the margin of victory wasn’t convincing enough. What he refuses to see is not necessarily in the raw numbers of how many, but in who voted for whom. The Republicans may have won the cultural debate but they have lost the intellectual debate. Many of the so-called Reagan Democrats and moderate Republicans voted for President-elect Obama. He won in the 100,000 income group, the 200,000 income group, and with the suburban voters. I have never agreed with the Reagan Democrat lie, those voters are just socially conscious Republicans. If it were not for the die-hard Southerners who many as we know voted on issues besides competence in this election, the rout would have been unprecedented.

President-elect Obama was able to forge a new majority that resembles more of how America resembles. The country is changing and someone forgot to tell the Republicans. President-elect Obama won the Latino vote, the advanced degree vote, and the urban vote. America is becoming darker, smarter, and more urbane and the cultural warfare argument has lost its appeal among these voters. What the Republicans don’t realize is that there are more “other” Americans than there are “real” Americans and that base is shrinking all the time. It’s funny how the Republican apologists have settled on two causes for their defeat and they are the economic downturn and Governor Sarah Palin. I disagree on both counts. While an impending depression does have a tendency to hurt the incumbent party I don’t think that the downturn in and of itself caused the campaign melt-down of Senator McCain. Many point to his small lead in September that vanished with the news of the melt-down. This idea completely ignores two very important facts. The first is that the policies of the Republicans led to this debacle. It wasn’t like this was the result of some unpredictable calamities. The second is that it ignores the response of Senator McCain to the crisis. As far as Governor Palin is concerned granted she was a Hail-Mary but let’s face it McCain was going to lose anyway. This was not the election for two pasty old white dudes to win. That was not what the country was looking for.

So it is my hope that Republicans continue to live in their alternative reality of phony outrage and crisis’s while we continue to offer the new America “a change they can believe in”. I use to think these people were bad people but that is not the case. They just don’t get it and I am not sure they ever will.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110602568.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Read more!

The Reverse Bradley Effect

Now that we are seeing the numbers and the trends from the election, I think I can finally go public with an idea I had two weeks prior to the election. As many of my colleagues and news media types were debating the “Bradley Effect” I was telling all who would listen that there would be a reverse effect. The reverse Bradley Effect is when white Republicans and independents would tell pollsters that they would not support Barack Obama and then got in the voting booth and did in fact vote for him. I guess their black side over-ruled their white side.

It is one thing to suggest such a phenomenon it is another to provide evidence of such. I do not only believe that Obama gained among the higher middle-class normally Republican voters I also believe that his race allowed some Republican suburbanites to take part in an historic moment by helping to break down the racial barrier for the Presidency. How can anyone Democratic or Republican after watching the McCain campaign make overt attempts to keep the nation divided not be moved to strike a vote for freedom and unity of an ailing nation. I have spoken with moderate Republicans who stated that given the eventual loss of McCain and the “real America” branding of the Republican Party by Governor Palin they were able to in good conscious to break with the Party and vote Obama. General Colin Powell was the beginning of the exodus of moderate Republicans that abandoned the sinking ship that is becoming the Republican Party.

Senator Obama not only got the majority of the 100,000 dollar income group, but also the 200,000 dollar income group. These voters have notoriously supported the Republican Party since the days of Reagan and despite the McCain camps socialism alarms the majority of them switched to Obama. Last night was a great night for the Democrats but more importantly it was a tremendous night for President Obama. I think this election began as an anti-Bush campaign but as the campaign continued it became less of voting against Bush and more about voting for Obama. Even though last night’s overwhelming victory for Obama was a complete and total repudiation of the Bush years even by some Republicans, it was more than that. I think we should not completely focus on the negative aspects of this election but look to the positive opportunities that this election provides us. For the first time in a generation we have the opportunity to put the past political, cultural, and social wars behind us. In order to do this we will all have to kill our sacred cow issues and begin to seek common ground. What can we agree on in all issues?

Regardless of the issue whether it is abortion or the war there are ideas that we can agree on and begin to work out from there. I think we all can agree that there are too many abortions in America. Okay from there what can we do to reduce that amount? We have to take the demagoguery out of these issues and look to come together to seek solutions. For too many years we have chosen partisanship demagoguery over common sense. Rather than basing our acceptance of ideas on the merits of the idea and what is right for America regardless of who proposes it, we have been focusing on the source of the idea. We have the opportunity to marginalize the intolerance that has too often led to so many of our problems being embedded and mired in inactivity. We are still fighting the same issues year after year with no solutions. In a democracy no one is going to get everything they want exactly the way they want it. We must learn to compromise.

Last night could be a do-over for America. Once again we have the good will of the world and amongst ourselves similarly as we did after the 9/11 tragedy. We have the opportunity to use this time to reach out not only towards each other but to the rest of the world. The world has been holding its collective breath waiting for this election and the result was more than they could have expected. But this period of good-will is not eternal but will be based on the policies of the new President. If President Obama does not change the policies of the last administration it won’t matter what race he is or what symbolism this election may have signified. President Obama should very early in his administration make a gesture to the world either through his selection of his cabinet or with a gesture of goodwill through diplomacy. Wow, wouldn’t that be a novel idea diplomacy instead of unilateralism; cooperation instead of isolationism. I think in the end the American electorate had had enough of the obstructionist politics of the past and chose some redemption and hope over fear and divisiveness.

Just in case there was any doubt in the new America green trumps black. Thanks to the bankrupt policies of the Bush administration and the financial meltdown Americans showed that they were willing to trust someone with a plan regardless of their race. This has not always been the case. According to pollsters last night was suppose to be a long night with an election that was expected to be too close to call. “The Mac is back!” If Barack Obama had underperformed the poll numbers we would have been inundated with the “Bradley Effect” theories and calls of closet racism. Since he outperformed the polls then there has to have been a reverse “Bradley Effect”. Many of those polled who responded with support for the white guy actually voted for the black guy. It won’t be long before the job of pollster goes the way of blacksmith. Rather than this election vindicating them it further exposes the inherent flaws of the process. Remember the week before the election when the McCain pollster publically leaked their internal memos and numbers showing a “tightening” of the race?

While the election of Barack Obama does not signal the end of racism or partisanship it does demonstrate that the American public has developed a pragmatism and a willingness to move pass some prejudices of the past. How many could have predicted that there would have been a reverse “Bradley Effect”? I remember posting an essay on the major liberal blogs stating how I felt John McCain had lost this election and it was met with derision and requests to have it deleted. I even predicted that the election would be called at 10:00PM CST again many feared “jinxing” the results to speak of a victory let alone a resounding victory. We have traveled a long way as a nation and yet we have many miles to go before we sleep. Faith and hope has won out over fear and that is something we all can celebrate.

Read more!

The Real Independent

One of the major focuses of the upcoming general election for President will involve the fight for “so-called” independent voters. The conventional wisdom is that the majority of these voters will support Senator McCain because of his reputation as a “maverick”, a reputation that is dubious at best. My first thought is that I personally believe that the influence of the independent voter is highly overrated. What constitutes an independent voter? Is it a voter who is not affiliated with any major Party? Is it a voter that votes issues and not ideology? As our nation careens towards the abyss how any voter can not take a stand on the issues is beyond me. While I have no Party affiliation per se, it is increasingly obvious to me that the Republican Party is bankrupt of any new ideas for the future and are trying to cling to a vision of America long since gone.

Many of their answers to the monumental questions facing this nation are to continue with business as usual. Questions such as the war, healthcare, the environment, the economy, and civil liberties have left them with a remix of past failed policies. While ideology has its place, we are at a state and have been for a couple of decades where what is best for the nation should trump what is best for Wall Street, the two despite the propaganda are not synonymous. There is a core group in Washington both Democrats and Republicans who have been overwhelmed by the issues we face and their only solace is to try to cling to a false representation of America’s past greatness.

Many of these so-called independent voters in my opinion are the once vaulted Reagan Democrats, who while they share some empathy with the plight of the poor and minorities of this nation it is often overcome by their personal fears and anxieties. These fears and anxieties can and often have been manipulated by the Republicans for political expediency. For this reason they are not rooted by any real sense to any fundamental beliefs other than self-interest. Their loyalties and their support tends to shift based on perceived assaults against those self-interests whether real or imagined. One of the main current themes being used to manipulate these voters is the immigration question. You have politicians as far away from the border as North Dakota using illegal immigration as a rallying cry.

Mr. Van Hollen said Republicans should be doubly worried by evidence that showed Mr. Obama outperformed Senator John McCain among independents in primary states when the Republican party’s nomination battle was still in doubt. Independents are considered Mr. McCain’s political strong suit.

Yet the memo said that, based on exit polls, Mr. Obama won 16,000 more independent votes than Mr. McCain in New Hampshire, a state where Mr. McCain is very popular. “This trend continued in the traditionally Republican state of South Carolina, another open primary, where Senator Obama won the independent vote with approximately 51,405 compared to Senator McCain’s 33,498,” it said.

Republicans see the independent bloc as gravitating toward Mr. McCain in the general election and believe the primary results will not necessarily translate since the Democratic primary was more compelling, attracting more interest from independents at the time.[1]

Many of these voters I think will be susceptible to the subtle and not so subtle references to race that will be dished up by the Republican attack machine. Many of these voters have already been manipulated by such ads as Willie Horton, Obama is Osama, and the like. So while many of these voters may not have a Party designation per se I would hardly count them as independents, they are about as independent as Joe Lieberman.

Our focus instead should be on moderate voters who will I think be more attentive to the message of change by Senator Obama and have become fed up with the lies and screw ups of George Bush and the Republicans as a whole. Now many of you will say that the moderates and the independents are the same and in some cases they are, but in a larger case they are not because moderates can include members of a Party as well as independents. Let’s face it folks there are going to be some people who are not going to vote for Senator Obama for no other reason than he is black and that is ok this is America. We will never turn these voters and we have to be ok with allowing those voters to be led by their hearts. Our goal should be on reaching out to those who hold moderate views on issues like race, abortion, and the war. We will need these voters in contested swing states like Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, and the likes.

Obama represents our best chance to sweep and put into play states that Democrats haven’t contested in for years. We have to remember there are more moderates than racists or radicals and while we must remain true to our message we don’t have to alienate others in the process of delivering it. You might be surprised who might be agreeable to hear it. So let’s see who the real independent will be come November.

[1] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/obamas-down-ballot-effect/

Read more!

Baking For Obama Fundraiser

For the first time in my life I am planning to host a fundraiser for a political candidate. I like many of us over the years have grown apathetic towards our political process in general and politicians in particular. However, today I sense in a change in the political and social climate of our nation. I believe that we as a nation are at crossroads between continuing the policies that have led to the mess we currently find ourselves in and taking another road towards peace and tolerance.

Thanks in large part to George W. Bush and his wing-nut friends our country has reached an intolerable state for many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum. We are in the midst of unending war against an enemy we can not identify, let alone defeat. Our economy is in shambles and our political discourse has reached a level where governing is almost impossible. Our civil liberties have been trampled in the name of the “War on Terrorism” or the “War on Drugs”. Torture of our fellow human beings is being openly debated and condoned. For many of us this is not the America we had envisioned or agreed to even after 9/11.

So for these reasons and many others, I have decided to do more than just sit behind a monitor and write about these ailments. I have decided to take a chance and dream again, to hope again in an America that stands for great things both at home and abroad. For me Senator Barack Obama represents an opportunity to bring about the changes needed to create that America, not because I believe that he is such a great man but because I believe that he can inspire all of us to do better. Senator Obama is merely the catalyst for change in this country. He is only a man. If we are to create the America I spoke of it will require the work, inspiration, and imagination of all of us. So here is where I begin to do my part. This event is being held in conjunction with the MoveOn.org organization. The goal is to have these “Hungry for Change” bake sale events all over the country on June 21st and 22nd.

Baking For Obama

Location: In front of the fountain at 47th & Main in Kansas City, MO
Date & Time: June 21, 2008 at 12:00PM

Please come out and help us make this an event to remember. Let’s take our country back one cookie and cupcake at a time. If you would like to volunteer or donate some baked goods or cash, please feel to contact me at rodney.knott@gmail.com.

Read more!

The Gauntlet Has Been Dropped

The upcoming strategy for the Republicans for the fall campaign is beginning to take shape. The bulk of the campaign will revolve around the lack of patriotism of Senator Obama. He is already being cast by the Republican nominee and the Republican minions as being unpatriotic and a hater of America. Let the swift boating begin. The goal of this strategy is to scare the rural and working class white Americans who are being targeted because of the final weeks of the Hillary rural strategy. The belief is that Obama is vulnerable amongst these voters because of race, class, and patriotism. The Republicans have to get the debate away from the issues and focus on divisiveness. If the Republicans were to run on the issues this election would be over tomorrow.

The conservative editorial writers have already begun the onslaught. The latest to weigh in is one of my all-time favorites William Kristol. Now how this guy is still in print is beyond me. Mr. Kristol has a long and storied career of embellishing the lies of Republican administrations from the Reagan years until today, as well as his anemic war reporting of the pre and post Iraq invasion. It seems now that Mr. Kristol believes that after listening or reading the commencement speech of Senator Obama given at Wesleyan University in place of Senator Ted Kennedy who was ill at the time that the Senator is un-American. In his speech the Senator expounded on the virtues of service to one’s fellow man. In a time of unprecedented greed and selfishness in America it was an important topic and was delivered not with condemnation, but on the contrary with grace and personal examples.

Leave aside the fact that two years elapsed between Obama’s graduation from Columbia in 1983 and his heading off to Chicago in 1985. Dramatic foreshortening is, after all, sometimes necessary. And leave aside whether $14,000 in 1985 was really such a shockingly low salary for someone recently out of college — in inflation-adjusted dollars, it’s about what we pay entry-level editorial assistants today at The Weekly Standard.[1]

The Republican slime machine continues to mimic the same lines no matter who the target is, whether it is a “renegade” insider turned snitch or any objective voice in the face of their dishonesty. This line is similar to the one being promoted by another conservative rag which states that poor people in America are not really poor, just look at all the food they have to eat and whether earning less than the minimum wage is poor. Show me how many graduates from Ivy League schools who make the kind of money Mr. Kristol is talking about upon graduation. I know of Ivy Leaguers who make more than that while still going to school. If you can’t attack the message, then attack the messenger. What Mr. Kristol really wants to attack is the notion of someone from a top university being willing to give up making money for the service of their fellow man. This attack is not palatable to the masses, so it is disguised as an assault on the factual basis of the story.

My questions are simply these. If Mr. Kristol thinks that serving our nation in the military is such a fine calling why didn’t he nor any of his right wing counterparts partake of the honor? Also, why is it that no one questions the credentials of these hacks after they spew this crap? Because it plays to the false patriotism and fears of some Americans who believe that patriotism is a commodity that you can buy or display like so many flag lapel pins. True patriotism, like true love cannot be purchased. Instead like true love it is a verb and an action, not simply words espoused by warrior sheep who have no trouble debating the glory of war knowing that neither they nor their children will ever have to experience it.

But at an elite Northeastern college campus, Obama obviously felt no need to disturb the placid atmosphere of easy self-congratulation. He felt no need to remind students of a different kind of public service — one that entails more risks than community organizing. He felt no need to tell the graduating seniors in the lovely groves of Middletown that they should be grateful to their peers who were far away facing dangers on behalf of their country.[2]

These “peers far away facing dangers” on our behalf are in this position because Iraq attacked the US? No they are facing danger because Bush and in a large part Mr. Kristol chose to attack Iraq. While he played no role in the actual decision to attack Iraq, his writings on behalf of the invasion and in defense of President Bush’s decision to invade have been well documented. The goal of the Republican strategy against Senator Obama will be two-fold. They will openly attack his and his wife’s patriotism and secretly they will attack his race. They will attempt to exploit the fears of some whites of a black candidate. Of course it will be done couched in the usual code words with nods and winks. The southern strategy is about to take on a whole new manifestation as it is exported to all the small towns and rural areas of America.

These attacks must be exposed and dismantled by all true patriotic Americans regardless of Party affiliations. How can one man lynch another man? He can’t without the acquiescence of other so called “good people”. We are or we could be at a major turning point in America. We are at the crossroads of either moving forward as a nation or reaching backwards. The reason that Obama has been able to rally the young of America is because they recognize more so than older Americans where we are at this moment. This is no time in America to turn back the clocks based on fear and divisiveness, but to move forward as a nation towards inclusiveness and tolerance.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/opinion/02kristol.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/opinion/02kristol.html

Read more!

If He Wasn’t Black

For the first time in American history being a black man is now an asset? Ok, for the first time outside of an athletic event being a black man is a plus. I have been black a long time and I have witnessed countless instances when being a black man has been a handicap of epic proportions. I can even attest to the fact that just having a “black sounding” name has been a detriment. Now, I am suppose to believe that being a black man is somehow the reason Barack Obama is leading the nomination for President of America? I wonder if the people who are saying this line even hear themselves. I would like for them to go and tell this to the many young black men that are incarcerated in our nations jails and prisons who won’t even get the opportunity to vote in this historic election or tell it to the many young black men who are unemployed standing around the corners of our inner cities.

I have heard and read that blacks and specifically Obama supporters are too sensitive and are reacting to everything in racial terms. It appears that any criticism of Obama is cast in terms of racist intent. The race card is being played in reverse. Everyone that criticizes Senator Obama is a racist regardless of their previous record or support for civil rights. I agree there is a hypersensitivity on the part of Senator Obama’s campaign, but I do not think that it extends to the candidate himself. One of the main reasons for this I believe is that we are at a place as a nation that we have never been before. And please don’t talk to me about Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, or Al Sharpton. Due to our refusal in the past to honestly confront the issue of race in this country, no one really knows how to proceed in this area. This is especially true for most whites, particularly whites who have previously stood with blacks on civil rights issues. Talk that use to go on behind closed doors in liberal parlors are finally now being aired and I for one am thankful.

The latest “racial attack” was perpetrated by none other than Geraldine Ferraro, the first women ever nominated for the Vice-Presidency by a major Party. Ms. Ferraro basically stated that if it were not for Barack Obama being black he would not be leading in the nomination for the Democrats. Now many took this to be another hidden reference to race being perpetrated by another Clinton supporter. I do not believe that Ms. Ferraro is racist and I would consider anyone who did to be either foolishly carried away by the campaign or deliberately using comments to further their agenda and both have no place in a serious discussion about the comment. So, if you fall into one of those categories you should probably not read any further.

She specifically accused David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, of using race as a tactical weapon and of implying that her remarks were racist.

Mr. Axelrod, responding in an e-mail message Wednesday night, said, “I never suggested that. I’ve known Gerry for a long time, and I don’t believe that. But what she said was plainly wrong and divisive.”

The same, she said, is true of the Obama candidacy. “Why is his candidacy historic? Can you give me another reason why it is an historic campaign? Why are we afraid to say this? I am absolutely stunned by this whole thing. I’m not saying he isn’t qualified, never did I say that. He is very smart. He has experience issues, but if George Bush can learn to run the country, so can this guy.”[1]

I do not believe that Ms. Ferraro is a racist, however I do take issue with her statements. I take issue with them not because of their racial tone, but something more insidious that she probably never considered. As a black man who has broken many social and employment barriers, the one constant has been the “affirmative action” defense used by whites who felt they could not have been bested by a more qualified black person. Their egos will only allow them to believe that it was because of an unfair advantage that a black man could be better in any given area outside of entertainment or sports. The comments by Ms. Ferraro echo those sentiments. Sure Barack Obama is intelligent, gifted, and qualified, but still if he wasn’t black he would just be another also ran.

Her comments are not racist, but they are in fact divisive. They smack of the affirmative action argument and there are only a few issues that are more divisive in America than affirmative action. So, I guess the only way that a black man could be elected President is through affirmative action? So the American electorate is trying to carry out the ultimate in affirmative action hiring by electing Barack Obama. Imagine how this sounds to the many blacks who have gained positions of power and prestige through hard work to be told once again that the only reason is because you are black.

Ms. Ferraro has the right to express this opinion the problem for me though is that to give her statements credibility she should have also said the same thing about Hillary. That the reason Hillary is in this position is because she is a woman, because the truth be told the leading candidate should have been a white man like it has been for 400 years. So it is unfair to say Obama is in this position because of his race, but not also say the reason Hillary is in this position is because she is a woman. By not including what makes Hillary’s candidacy historical Ms. Ferraro’s comments can be construed as those from a sore loser. Why does the issue of gender in Hillary’s case not apply, but the issue of race does apply for Obama? Is it because she feels that Hillary is so supremely qualified that it doesn’t matter or is it that Obama is so under qualified that this is all he has going for him? If he wasn’t black.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/us/politics/13ferraro.html

Read more!

The Next Bob Dole

You have to admire the loyalty of the Republicans, they will reward the old soldiers who in the past have taken hits for the team. Whenever they are bankrupt of ideas of how to mislead the public they trot out one of their old horses and parade him around like he is something new and improved. Just like the 96 election when the Republicans are facing youth and change they counter with their own youthful change candidate, back then it was 73 year old Bob Dole. This year it will be 71 year old John McCain. As a reward to their old soldiers who have towed the Party line and swallowed previous bitter defeats by lesser candidates the Republicans offer them up as sacrificial lambs. Just as Bob Dole was surgically attached to the politics and ideas of the past so is McCain. Despite their efforts to recreate Senator McCain, he is a Party loyalist and his primary campaign proved that.

Let’s take a look at the “maverick” Senator McCain and his willingness to defy his Party sentiments for principal. Because there has been so much “flip-flopping by the Senator it is hard to know where to begin. The “straight-talk” express hasn’t had any straight talk to date and none seems likely for the foreseeable future. The troops in Iraq have a greater chance of being there for 100 years than for Senator McCain to stick to a political position. It is amazing how the Republicans allowed McCain to batter then candidate Mitt Romney for being a political chameleon while at the same time he was changing colors faster than leaves in the fall. Unfortunately for Romney it was the Mormonism.

Mr. McCain, who derided his onetime Republican competitor Mitt Romney for his political mutability, has himself meandered over the years from position to position on some topics, particularly as he has tried to court the conservatives who have long distrusted him. His most striking turnaround has been on the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against twice but now wants to make permanent. Mr. McCain has also expressed varying positions on immigration, torture, abortion and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary.[1]

Now this is a politician that does not pander to Party or voters. If this is not pandering I would hate to see someone who really does pander. I think the most troubling of all of his stand reversals for me is the torture issue. This issue goes more to character than any other, especially from a man who supposedly was tortured. If Senator McCain can change stripes on an issue that should resonate to his very core, then what is there left to throw under the bus? Iran invasion? Limited nuclear strike? Venezuela? If a man can not be counted on to stand on the one core issue of his time, then how can we expect him stand up to the lobbyists and the any other winds that blow through the White House? For a man like this, nothing is off the table. All of those so-called Democrats who have been saying and writing that they will vote for McCain if their candidate loses had better come to grips with this simple fact.

I find the comparisons between John McCain and Bob Dole to be striking. They both were vilified by the social conservatives and had to pander. They both have short fuses and have been known to fly off the handle. They both had extensive careers in the Senate carrying the water for lesser men in the White House. They both are war veterans who received extensive injuries. They both were nominated in the twilight of their lives and their careers by a Party looking for a “Hail Mary” moment in history. The list goes on but I think you get my drift. The biggest difference is that McCain is liked by the media and Bob Dole was not. This will allow McCain to remain close in the race due to the media not going after him on the many issues I have already named.

The idea of a Bob Dole presidency united the Democrats and kept a lot of social conservatives at home. This will not be the case today if one of two things happen. First, if the Democrats continue this win at all cost strategy and second if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination. I would never say nor do I believe that McCain would be a better choice than Hillary, but there are many Independents and Republicans that would rally behind Osama bin Laden before supporting Hillary. Her nomination would turn what should be a landslide into a very close election. This of course is no reason not to nominate her, but this would be the landscape going forward. Bill Clinton defeated Bob Dole on the strength of a booming economy and peace at home, currently we have an economy on the verge of a meltdown and an unpopular war. The pieces are in place for not only retaking the White House, but also restoring a majority in both Houses.

Just like Bob Dole represented the policies of the past, so does John McCain who continues to voice support for the same unpopular policies of a President currently hovering at a 19% approval rating. It will be up to us to ensure that John McCain receives the same fate as Bob Dole and retired by a resounding defeat. Bob Dole was wrong for America in 1996 and John McCain is wrong for America in 2008. While the Democrats are fielding two historical candidacies simultaneously the Republicans are recycling another old white man, once again displaying their lack of ideas and a plan for the future of this country.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/us/politics/03mccain.html?ref=us

Read more!

She Can’t Win For Losing

There have been times in this election when I have truly felt sorry for Hillary Clinton. While the truth is that she has not been well served by this campaign or her advisors, this only highlights a bigger issue that has plagued her. Regardless of how this election turns out for her she can never win. The reason she can never win is because she can never be herself or she can never have her own voice. It is this lack of a true consistent voice that continues to plague her and her campaign. Regardless of what you may think of her competitors they have been afforded the luxury of being who they are, Hillary on the other hand has not.

She began this campaign with a man’s voice, that she could be just as tough as the boys on security, defense, and the terrorists. But was this what the voters wanted from her? The problem with being a man that looks like a woman is that most voters if given the chance will choose a man. Why have half the package when you can have the whole thing? Conventional wisdom had it that she had to present this tough as nails image to win over white males. Did the voters want a woman that spoke to the issues with the voice of a man? Would the voters support a woman that spoke to the issues as a woman? The problem is that we will never know, because Hillary was never given the opportunity to try. I find it interesting that in the few opportunities that Hillary allowed that female voice to come through she did surprisingly well in those elections. Was it a statistical glitch or was this what the electorate wanted from her?

What do we want from our female candidates? Do we want them to speak to issues as women, bringing those characteristics that separate women from men. It seems that in America we have gotten confused, we have come to the conclusion that equality means sameness. In order for women to be equal to men they must be the same as men, they must be as tough, as masculine, and as treacherous. Rather than accept that we can be different and yet still be equal, we have the mistaken belief that in order to be equal we must be the same. It is this thought process that causes us to absorb other cultures and want everyone to be the same. Those who refuse to accept the Western civilization model and values are deemed inferior and uncivilized. Rather than celebrate and promote our differences we want to integrate and merge them into this one ideal.

While many other societies and cultures value differences in race and gender, we tend to fear them. Given the climate in this country today what would the odds be of an American-born Muslim being elected to any office? Those that are not like us we fear, so we want to make everyone like us even if we have to kill them in the process. Hillary is a victim of this mentality on another level. Instead of being able to bring her femininity to her campaign she is forced to campaign like “one of the guys”. Because rather than her being a choice for change to a more feminine position, she has to mimic the men. So she is a woman that is not allowed to be a woman. Barack Obama has a similar problem in that he is the black man that cannot be black.

For Hillary being a woman should have been an asset in this election and in this country. You would think the electorate would have gotten tired of four hundred years of white men leading this country and would want to try some new leadership. It was fear that the country was unwilling to elect a true woman’s voice that caused her to become this hybrid that appears as a woman but speaks as a man. Unfortunately for Hillary this has caused her to lose support among women who had been hoping that she would speak with a feminine voice. Instead of hearing reconciliation and nurturing they have heard talk of 3 am phone calls to deliver bombs on sleepy villages and a willingness to go nuclear if the boys do it. While this talk may appeal to the hardcore feminist who needs to prove that she is as tough as any man, the majority of women do not share this desire. Many women enjoy and appreciate their tenderness and yes their softness. These are the women that Hillary was not able to speak to or for. These are the women who never got a voice in this election.

Hillary wanted the best of both worlds, she wanted to be able to use being a woman when it was convenient and yet be like a man when it was needed. She never was able to find her own voice, the voice of a woman being a woman. In the end this lack of a true voice will cost Hillary either the primaries or the general election. I am not sure if Hillary would have done better being a woman, but I am sorry she didn’t try. I do know that that campaign would have advanced the cause of women a lot farther than this one has. As it stands now we are still presenting women candidates that must speak like men to be taken seriously. I just hope the next woman who runs won’t be afraid to use her female voice and be who she is. The real question I guess is, will we let her?

Read more!

How To Lose In November

You would think that after two unsuccessful Democratic Presidential bids that the members of the Party would have learned some things by now. I guess losing two elections to a Republican who will undoubtedly go down in history as one of our worst Presidents has taught them nothing. I am often surprised by the progressive critics of Senator Obama for not being specific enough in his speeches and being soft on policy. So I suppose Al Gore and John Kerry lost because they were not specific enough in their campaigns concerning policy and that George Bush won because he was more specific? I doubt anyone would accuse George Bush of being a policy wonk. No, the reason those two lost is that they were defeated not by policy, but by philosophy. Neither man had the tools to inspire the masses to overcome the political rhetoric of the Republican machine.

Does any progressive believe that Gore or Kerry would not have made a better President than Bush or that their policies would not have benefitted more Americans? The problem is this, most average Americans do not vote based on policy. I wish I could say that our voters were savvy and sophisticated and were abreast of the issues and the candidates, but this would be a lie. Unfortunately in a democracy while it functions best when the electorate is engaged and educated on the issues, it allows for the electorate to not be if they so choose. Do the majority of voters vote based on specific issues? I would submit to you that they do not. George Bush did not get elected because he represented the best policies for the majority of the voting public. So if it isn’t based on policy statements, then what is it based on?

Since the advent of television and its introduction into our political process our elections have fundamentally changed as the public has changed. We have gone from a nation of readers to a nation of watchers. Before the advent of television if someone wanted information they had to actively seek it out in books or newspapers. Today this is no longer the case, today our homes are bombarded by information on a constant basis. This would not be a bad thing if that information were honest and credible, unfortunately many times it is not. When the majority of the electorate bases it’s choice on questionable and often times false information then bad choices are going to be made. Which brings me to the criticisms of Senator Obama and their basis in a false reality.

There are many progressives who say that it is unfair to have a candidate that we know so little about. I would have to agree, if we lived in a perfect world where every candidate’s policies and records were presented in a truthful manner then this would not be too much to ask. However, we don’t live in that world. We live in a world where much of our political discourse is based on outright lies and deception. Where traits that in a normal world would be considered strengths are manipulated into weaknesses. We live in a world where a decorated war hero can be reconstructed into a lying unpatriotic coward based on innuendo and outright lies. The truth of the matter is that rightly or wrongly the majority of the American voting public is not comfortable with the truth. Many progressives believe that the candidates should be forthright and straightforward about their agendas and should be willing to tell the public some unpleasant truths. The reality is that many Americans do not want to hear these unpleasant truths, no matter how accurate they may be. And those who tell these truths are often times defeated in landslides.

The beauty about Senator Obama’s candidacy is that because he speaks to larger concepts instead of specific policies it is more difficult to craft false narratives about him. His opponents have a difficult time developing and targeting specific areas with which to attack him. While progressives see this as a weakness it is in fact under our current electoral conditions a strength, as Hillary Clinton can attest to. It is very difficult to attack hope, change, and dreams for a better America. So how do we know who Senator Obama is and what he will stand for? The answer to this question is not difficult to find. All one has to do is look at his life prior to this campaign and I would submit prior to his even taking elective office. Many times I have heard the comparisons between Bush and Obama and to me it seems ridiculous to compare the history of the two. All one has to do is to look at the history of the two men to see the foolishness of such a comparison. The Bush history has always been crafted in lies and misleading facts from his being a unifier as Governor of Texas to his belief in compassionate conservatism.

Senator Obama began his career as a community organizer in the ghettos of Chicago reaching out to the disenfranchised and the forgotten, while George Bush began his career as a trust fund baby drinking and drugging himself into oblivion. While Senator Obama spent his early adult years helping people, Bush was spending his helping himself. Bush had no understanding or empathy for those less fortunate than himself so his references to such were empty rhetoric crafted to reach an electorate that was either unwilling or too disinterested to uncover the lies.

In order for Senator Obama to win in November he will have to continue to speak to larger concepts mixing in specifics as they are warranted. Despite the progressive mantra to the contrary most Americans do not vote based on policy briefs, they vote based on a feeling. I know it is a hell of a way to elect the most powerful person in the world, but welcome to democracy. As long as Senator Obama is able to stay above the specific policy debates he will remain much more difficult to attack. While he leaves himself open to the “all sizzle and no meat” criticism which for the most part does not seem to be sticking, I think that it is a risk worth taking. Without those specifics the Republican attack dogs are left with few avenues of attack and the ones that they are left with are dangerous and subject to backfire against them. So far the best they have been able to come up with is the false Muslim story, his middle name, and he doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin attacks.

The difference between Obama and Clinton or Obama and McCain for that matter is not in policy, but in philosophy. Those two represent the past and Obama represents the future, a future we will help to craft. The thing that bothers me about the net-roots criticism of Obama is how they try to make it all about him and forget his message of change for all of us. I have read where people have written in blogs and in the MSM media of what if I don’t want to change, what if I am ok the way I am, well that’s fine no one says you have to change. Remember, the Flat Earth Society still meets annually and I am sure they are in the market for new members.

Read more!

It Depends On Your Definition of Lobbyist

According to Senator McCain, just because your campaign is being run by lobbyists that doesn’t mean you are still not anti-lobbyist. The straight-talker now wants us to believe that his lobbyists are not like the other ones populating Washington. That’s right his lobbyists are honorable and he is never influenced by their pressure. While for many non-Christian wing-nuts the issue is not whether McCain did or did not have relations with that woman, it is purely political and whether that woman had undue influence over the Senator. So according to the Senator, a lobbyist isn’t a lobbyist if they work for his campaign.

McCain attorney Robert S. Bennett played down the contradiction between the campaign's written answer and Paxson's recollection.

"We understood that he [McCain] did not speak directly with him [Paxson]. Now it appears he did speak to him. What is the difference?" Bennett said. "McCain has never denied that Paxson asked for assistance from his office. It doesn't seem relevant whether the request got to him through Paxson or the staff. His letters to the FCC concerning the matter urged the commission to make up its mind. He did not ask the FCC to approve or deny the application. It's not that big a deal."

The Paxson deal, coming as McCain made his first run for the presidency, has posed a persistent problem for the senator. The deal raised embarrassing questions about his dealings with lobbyists at a time when he had assumed the role of an ethics champion and opponent of the influence of lobbyists.

The two letters he wrote to the FCC in 1999 while he was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee produced a rash of criticism and a written rebuke from the then-FCC chairman, who called McCain's intervention "highly unusual." McCain had repeatedly used Paxson's corporate jet for his campaign and accepted campaign contributions from the broadcaster and his law firm.[1]

My question is how did Ms. Iseman get such complete access to Senator McCain? I am a skeptic granted but I know that for many men there are two types of women in the world the ones they have slept with and the ones they have yet to sleep with. It isn’t important to me whether Senator McCain slept with that lobbyist or any other lobbyist, politicians probably should sleep with them because then we wouldn’t end up being the only ones screwed. My main concern is the fact that John McCain has made a career of promoting himself as anti-lobbyist and now we see just as with all of McCain’s other claims to fame this one has no merits either. A lobbyist is a lobbyist and the sooner the Senator can acknowledge that the better. The most troubling thing about this whole affair are the lies starting to come out of the McCain camp. Not the lies about any sort of tryst between the Senator and Ms. Iseman, but the lies concerning his actions on her behalf and involving her. First there was the lies concerning meeting with Mr. Paxson on behalf of Ms. Iseman, why would that man have any reason to lie and say he met with Senator McCain when he didn’t? The second is the lies about whether his campaign was concerned enough about the relationship to have to have a discussion with the Senator and Ms. Iseman, obviously if it gets to this level someone thinks there is a problem. Why would his campaign staff lie?

I think it is time for Senator McCain to do some “straight talking” concerning this whole affair. I have a feeling that we have not heard the last of the lies from Senator McCain on this subject. The thing about lying that any good liar knows is that you just have to keep telling more lies to cover the first batch. The more Mr. McCain’s campaign tries to spin the lies and inconsistencies the more damning they appear. What is odd is that Mr. McCain wrote the letters after receiving 20,000 dollars from those on whose behalf he wrote the letters, but there was no quid pro quo? Not to worry Republicans the Senator has already gotten a bounce from Republicans following these stories, it appears that the Party of family values and morality obviously do not consider lying and bribery, not to mention adultery immoral. Why am I not surprised?

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202634.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

Read more!

She Has Only Begun To Fight

Even if you are a Senator Clinton supporter her latest remarks about continuing the fight even after Texas and Ohio have got to be a little disconcerting. While it has been an historical and exciting primary season, I find it hard to believe that if after the Texas and Ohio primaries Senator Clinton has not been able to make up lost ground on Senator Obama that she would continue the fight. Though there have begun to be calls that Senator Clinton should abandon her quest for the Presidency I think that they may be premature. At this point the nomination is still as much hers as it is Senator Obama’s, but at some point I hope she recognizes that to continue to fight would be detrimental to the Party and the eventual nominee.

Even though Senator Obama has scored a series of wins and appears to be driving towards the nomination Senator Clinton still has a mathematical chance at regaining her footing and possibly winning. I know it seems unlikely and I personally believe that she will not win, the process must continue at least until Texas and possibly Ohio. There are a number of reasons why I think Senator Clinton will not win the nomination that I would like to discuss here.

The first is politics is a lot like sports, momentum plays a large part in the outcomes. Everyone wants to back a perceived winner. And also just as in sports, perception is often times the reality. Senator Obama is riding the wave of 11 straight victories and nothing succeeds like success. Senator Clinton has not won a contest since Super Tuesday, not only has she not won but has also been losing by double digits. Donors follow the winners, the more you win the easier it is to raise funds. Hillary’s donors have got to be feeling the heat right now and fundraising has got to be tough.

Indeed, Obama now appears to be at a tipping point where all the good news is his and all the bad news is hers. Beyond Clinton's string of recent losses, she has also replaced her campaign manager and deputy manager and loaned her campaign $5 million from personal funds.

Whether these developments turn Obama's campaign into a bandwagon in which Democratic voters start piling on -- the more historically normal pattern at this stage -- will determine whether Obama seizes front-runner status or the two keep slugging it out into the spring.[1]

The second is the fact that we are even in this position so late in the primaries. No candidate has ever been afforded all of the tools given to Senator Clinton at the beginning of this process. Let’s face it no candidate had more money, name recognition, or organization than Hillary Clinton, the fact that she is still in a dog-fight with a one-term unknown Senator speaks to her organizational skills and potential electability. Even her supporters have to be concerned by the current turn of events. Who could have predicted this scenario at the end of last year? This thing was suppose to be over by New Hampshire. The biggest explanation for this meltdown can only be the decision making inside the Clinton campaign, which has to fall on the candidate and not the manager.

WASHINGTON — She had everything going for her. The most famous name in politics. A solid lead in the polls. A war chest of at least $133 million.

Yet Hillary Clinton now finds herself struggling for political survival, her once-firm grasp of the Democratic presidential nomination seemingly slipping away.[2]

The third is concern of campaign fund mismanagement that is only now starting to surface. These concerns should have surfaced after the Senator’s senatorial re-election campaign which spent 30 million dollars on a campaign with only token opposition. The thing with campaign spending is that as long as you are winning no one really counts the cost, but as soon as you start losing every nickel is scrutinized. Right now Senator Clinton’s campaign spending is not only being scrutinized by the media and the blogosphere, but also her campaign donors and no one seems to like what they are finding. The campaign’s free-wheeling spending is causing alarm and now that the news has gotten out that the Senator had to loan her own campaign 5 million dollars the speculation is going through the roof.

If Senator Clinton had won the nomination as expected, would we be discussing her campaign spending now? I seriously doubt it. I think that because the Senator did not win as expected people are now looking for reasons to abandon her campaign and this is as good an excuse as any. The American public, media, and donors are fickle. One day you’re riding high and the next day you’re yesterday’s news. If Senator Clinton is not able to win Texas by double digits, I think it would be incumbent on her to bow out for the good of the Party. We will get to see if her own personal ambition is more important than the Party. If that proves to be the case, then I think the public, including a lot of her supporters will turn against her for good.

WASHINGTON — She had everything going for her. The most famous name in politics. A solid lead in the polls. A war chest of at least $133 million.

Yet Hillary Clinton now finds herself struggling for political survival, her once-firm grasp of the Democratic presidential nomination seemingly slipping away.[3]

[1] http://www.miamiherald.com/top_stories/story/417041.html
[2] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/28357.html
[3] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/28357.html

Read more!

Why Do We Fear Hope?

In this country many of us equate strength with the lack of emotion. The strong one is the one who can endure life without feeling. The weak one is the one who shows their emotions and thus are banished to a life of disappointment and tragedy. With the introduction of the political narrative of Barack Obama there has been a lot of talk about the word hope. I don’t ever recall this word being dissected to the degree that it has been during his unlikely run towards the White House. One would believe that no other politician has ever invoked the word in an election before. So what makes it so different today than say in 1992, when a young upstart politician challenged the status quo?

For his part, Bill Clinton organized his campaign around another of the oldest and most powerful themes in electoral politics: change. As a youth, Clinton had once met President John F. Kennedy, and in his own campaign 30 years later, much of his rhetoric challenging Americans to accept change consciously echoed that of Kennedy in his 1960 campaign.[1]

Or what about in 1960, when another youthful hope monger spoke so eloquently of hope for a new world while accepting the oath of office for President of the United States:

Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation,"² a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.[2]

So if it isn’t that the concept of hope is something new to elections, what can it be? I remember being a child and towards the end of November I would be filled with hope of the coming season. I wish I could say it was because I looked forward to exercising the true “spirit of the season” and all the good will towards my fellow man stuff, but that wasn’t what filled me with joy. I would begin to have hopes of the new toys that I looked forward to receiving for Christmas. I would watch in excitement at all the commercials of the coming new and latest toys and I would mentally create these lists of must have gadgets that I was sure to see under the tree on Christmas morning.

There was just one small problem, my father was a selfish man who found it difficult to spoil his children. So for many years there was the promise and hope for all of these things only to be followed on Christmas morning by the stark reality that was less than I had hoped for. You see as a child I could not understand or accept that my father was the man that he was, you see I wanted him to be like me or who I thought I was. The truth was that he could only be the man he was, not who I so desperately wanted and maybe needed him to be. I would awaken on Christmas morning to small tokens and I would end up crying later. After a while, my hopes began to lessen year by year until they were replaced with the gradual numbing of reality. The reality that no matter how much I hoped there was always going to be disappointment. In the end, I just stopped hoping and came to accept the cruelty of life.

As my life continued, I came to the conclusion that my problem in the first place was that I had dared to hope, that I had dared to believe in anything other than myself. I decided that from that point on that emotions were my problem, I would no longer allow anyone the ability to control my emotions. In fact I would bury them, my hero became Spock from Star Trek because he had no emotions. For many years I lived as emotionless as I could. But after two broken marriages, addiction, and suicidal moments I realized the that the strength I thought I had found in having no emotions was actually my downfall and my weakness. What I learned was that true strength and power does not belong to the cynic or the emotionless, but to those who are willing to express their emotions and become vulnerable to disappointment and hurt. True courage is not to never be afraid, but to be afraid and go on anyway.

Barack Obama is not God or a second coming of Jesus and his supporters do not believe this despite the cult analogies. He is simply a man who dares us to believe beyond ourselves. He is not promising to solve all of our problems or that the Government can. What he is offering us is a chance to put behind us many of the things that currently divide us and to focus on the many more things that unite us. After all what really can one man, even the President of the United States do? Over the last few decades we have seen what the politics of division and win at all costs has wrought, a country so divided we are on the verge of breaking. There are many who say that the answer is to continue as we have, that the only way to succeed is to beat the other side to a pulp. Today we are refighting the Civil War only class has replaced slavery. Will it take a bloody conflict to resolve our differences? I don’t know. There are many who are placing their hopes and aspirations on him and those people will be disappointed, because he can do nothing against those forces without our help and our actions.

What I do know is this, if we are able to appeal to the common good in all of us shouldn’t we to avoid that bloody conflict? Make no mistake about it if we do not enlist their help to change this country are we prepared to fight to take it? If Barack Obama’s hope fails it won’t be because he failed, it will be because we failed. If it is to succeed it will require many of us to overcome our cynicism and partisanship to come together for the greater good. The reason he does so well among the young is because they are not as jaded as their older counterparts, they still believe in change. The question now becomes can we transfer that hope into action or will we sit and wait for the disappointment so we can say, “See, I told you so”. It is no longer enough to vote, the last midterm election should have shown us that. We must follow up those votes with action. Just as with any seismic change in America, it must be bottom up, not top down. Our biggest fear is not that we are doomed, our biggest fear is that our hero will be bested; that the things we cherish love, hope, justice, and kindness to our fellowman will not win in the end.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992
[2] http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkinaugural.htm

Read more!

Is Maureen Dowd Objective?

My question is this? Is Maureen Dowd the columnist from the NY Times being objective in her criticisms of Hillary Clinton? In the past few weeks it appears that she is dismantling the Clinton campaign on a number of issues, from feminism to Hillary’s ability to lead. While her criticisms may be accurate many find them inappropriate and an act of betrayal to the cause of feminism. I don’t feel that she has an obligation to support Hillary because she is a woman or that she should not be allowed to criticize her campaign, but my problem is that she is doing it under the guise of impartiality. My belief is that she supports the campaign of Barack Obama and so her criticisms of Hillary are no more impartial that any other candidate’s supporter. By not couching her criticisms in the fact that she does support Obama it is in fact bringing criticism to herself.

While I think her criticisms are insightful and to some helpful, they do her readers a disservice because they appear to be anything but objective. They remind me of the same tactic being used by her colleague, Paul Krugman another columnist for the NY Times and his criticisms of Obama. It seems clear to me that Mr. Krugman prefers Hillary to Obama on a number of issues, but again by lodging these criticisms in the cloak of impartiality they do a disservice to the readers. Everyone in this election is allowed a choice in who they feel will best serve their Party and the nation and I would never begrudge anyone that right, but I think when you are writing opinion pieces that are not impartial you owe it to your readers to provide a disclaimer. If you don’t provide one then your criticism smacks of dishonesty.

After giving up drinking and becoming Texas governor, W. had supposedly changed from an arrogant, obdurate, Daddy-competing loser to a genial, bipartisan, mature winner. As it turned out, a total makeover is not possible after 40.

Hillary’s narrative echoes W.’s: After the scalding partisanship of the ’90s, she became a senator and turned the other cheek, working on legislation with Republicans who had pursued the impeachment case against her husband. She has supposedly learned from her White House mistakes on health care, Travelgate and legal issues, from her battles with the right and the press. She knows now that being obstructionist and secretive don’t work.

An appealing arc, but is it true? Her campaign shake-up showed that she continues to rank loyalty and secrecy above competence and ingenuity. She is still so guarded that she began answering questions from the press and voters only after she lost Iowa.

All of us have known big shots who keep a check on their real feelings and dark tendencies until they get the top job. Then they throw off the restraints and revert to their worst instincts, bullying others and insulating themselves with sycophants.

Hillary could be ready on Day 1 — to make up her Enemies List and banish Overkill Bill to a cubbyhole in the Old Executive Office Building. But it’s Day 2 that I’m really worried about.[1]

I believe Ms. Dowd raises legitimate concerns in this piece and in her comparisons between the lessons of George W. and Hillary, but I fail to see the objectivity in her writing. If Ms. Dowd wants to point out the demons of the Clintons and the pitfalls to a return to their governance she of course has every right to do so, but impartiality demands an equal disclosure of possible Obama demons. While we would all like to think that our candidates are free from sin, the truth of the matter is that our choices are all human. And because they are human our choices are all flawed to some degree. Hence the importance of disclosure, if one continues to pronounce objectivity and yet only points out the flaws on one side, where then is the impartiality?

My point I guess is this, I have no problem with columnists supporting one candidate’s platform or agenda over another’s, but if you do so and continue to write candidate critiques it is incumbent upon you to report that decision to your readers in the interest of fairness. I do not think it is fair for Ms. Dowd to continue to criticize Hillary without disclosing her support for Obama or whatever candidate she supports. So often we read pieces from columnists pretending to be objective when in truth they are being anything but. One of the positives of the blogosphere is that there is very little pretense of this false impartiality, you know who supports whom. Because of this “truth in advertising” it makes it more difficult to accept the hypocrisy of the MSM. I don’t know if it is the policy of the publications to not allow the columnists to endorse candidates, but it seems to be more of a hindrance than a help to the readers.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/opinion/17dowd.html?ref=opinion

Read more!

I Can Admit When I’m Wrong

Unlike many of my fellow bloggers, the MSM, and the talking-heads and pundits, I can admit when I am wrong. I have written and believed that whites when in the solitude of the voting booths would not be able to overcome centuries of racial history in America and actually be able to vote for a black man for President. Despite what the pollsters and campaign spokespersons were saying, the biggest question mark going into the primaries of Super Tuesday and beyond was would whites be willing to support Obama in the numbers that they were polling at? The truth be told no one knew the answer to that question and it created a lot of anxiety in the campaigns and in the rest of America. The answer at least among the Democrats in the primaries is a resounding yes.

In astounding numbers Obama is receiving the votes and support of both white males and white females in states with little or no black populations. I also questioned Obama’s support among blacks and now they are voting for him in large majorities helping him to carry many southern states and giving him the lead in polls for the border states. I don’t know what happened among blacks since the start of the primary season up until now, but there has been a wholesale shift of support from the Clinton brand to Obama. Prior to the primaries, the conventional wisdom was that Hillary and Barack would split the black vote at the worse along a 40-60 split, respectively. Somewhere in this process Obama has secured the black vote and eased the fears and questions many blacks had about him. I don’t know if they were actually questions about Obama or if it was more questions about America’s ability to vote for and support a black candidate. I think that as the electability question of Obama became less of an issue a lot of blacks who were afraid to support Obama began to jump on the bandwagon.

This is one of the few times in my life when I can honestly say that I am happy to have been wrong, because it means that the state of America is changing. Don’t get me wrong, even if we elect Obama the first black man to be President this will not in and of itself cure the many ills that plague America, but it will be one of those statement moments in history. What are statement moments in history? These are moments in history when the foundations of change are laid, even though the changes may be years or even decades away. These are moments when historians can look back and say this was the beginning of monumental change. The sad thing about change though is that it never works out like we think. Examples of this would be the Emancipation Proclamation, the Voting Rights Act, and Brown vs. Education, though these were foundations that could have ushered in monumental changes they were mitigated by obstacles of intransigence and apathy.

Regardless of how this election turns out, we are at a watershed moment in America and I am happy to have been here to witness it. I hope Obama goes on to win the nomination for obvious reasons, but also I want to see how the country will react when their next vote will actually put a black man in the White House. What will be the strategy of the Republicans to combat his candidacy? Race, inexperience, drug pushing? I just want to take this moment to congratulate those white Americans who were able to overcome the centuries of propaganda and racist history of America and vote for Obama. While many will minimize this moment and say this is the way it is suppose to be, I have never been confused with how things are suppose to be versus how things are. This election is one of the most difficult in American history, because there are two distinct historical narratives that can be written in one election. We can elect either the first woman or the first black man to be President and both have their appeal to various segments of the population. I have read that what it will come down to is which is more ingrained in the American psyche gender bias or race bias. I think this is too simplistic an approach and ignores the many other variables that are at play in this election. While it is certainly an issue worthy of discussion and will play itself out in the minds of many voters, if it comes down to a simple male or female question then chances are you won’t get pass the white male question in the first place.

So, on the one hand we have made some progress I just hope we do not accept the false narrative that our mission is accomplished and begin to hang up our banners and ignore the rest of the work that needs to be done. We still have too many of our fellow citizens incarcerated and disenfranchised, we still have to many of our fellow citizens accumulating wealth at the expense of the other hard working Americans, and we still have too many lobbyists and corporations dictating national policy. There are many more miles to go before we sleep America, so let’s pat our fellow citizens on the back and get back to work and may be some day we can live in the kind of America where electing a woman or black man for President won’t be news. And I won’t have to make these stupid apologies.

Read more!

The Fiscal Conservatives Have Won Again

With the news that John McCain is now the frontrunner for the Republican nomination it is official, the social conservatives have lost again to the fiscal conservatives. This demonstrates again that money in conservative America is still trusted more than God. The question now becomes has the Republican factions split beyond repair as is widely being reported? I tend to say no. What we are witnessing is the same phenomenon that occurs every four years with conservatives, every four years a fiscal conservative will come along and pander to the social conservatives in the primaries only to desert those “family values” for the more established values of greed and selfishness.

It is amazing how fast God and country are abandoned for the good of the Party. With all the talk about standing up for the “Christian values” of America, many in the social conservative movement are only too eager to take from Caesar what is Caesars and to leave God standing at the gate. Choosing to enrich themselves over standing up for principles too many so-called Evangelicals are willing to take their principles and plug them into their circumstances versus plugging their circumstances into their principles. In other words rather than asking how the situation fits into their principles they would rather ask how they can adjust their principles to fit into the situation.

Since his victory in the Florida primary, the growing possibility that Mr. McCain may carry the Republican banner in November is causing anguish to the right. Some, including James C. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh, say it is far too late for forgiveness.

But others, faced with the prospect of either a Democrat sitting in the White House or a Republican elected without them, are beginning to look at Mr. McCain’s record in a new light.[1]

I can’t wait to see how John McCain will be transformed right before our eyes into the embodiment of all the social conservative values in time for the general election, just like George W. was. I really thought this year the grass-root social conservatives would finally rise up and rebel against their fiscal conservative counterparts, but alas it was not to be. His record and positions will go through a revisionist rewriting and many of the social conservative leaders will recount their earlier criticisms and state unequivocally that John McCain is one of us. Never mind that he voted against the tax-cuts, opposed the same-sex marriage amendment, supported stem-cell research, looser immigration, and campaign reform. This will be the best repackaging since they tried to exhume Reagan from the grave and recreate who he was.

In the final analysis those staunch voices of American virtue will once again surrender their principles and their God for their real god, which is the god of money. Instead of voting their conscious’ they will again follow the money. It strikes me as odd that these pillars of the Evangelical community would instruct their followers to support John McCain. What we are witnessing is the hypocrisy that has characterized America in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the secular communities. When given the chance to stand on principle and support a candidate that supposedly embodies their beliefs, they have chosen to deny him before the cock can crow.

Meanwhile, conservatives are growing increasingly “resigned” to the idea of a McCain nomination, said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, adding that among Washington activists, many of whom, like him, double as lobbyists, self-interest may also be a factor.

“There are people who don’t like the idea of a being off a campaign or being on the bad list if the guy gets into the White House,” Mr. Keene said. “This is a town in which 90 percent of the people balance their access and income on the one hand versus their principles on the other.”[2]

Let us not be fooled John McCain is not mainstream. He has consistently embraced the policies of the Bush White House and we have no reason to believe that if elected he wouldn’t continue to do so. We can also expect Senator McCain to try and expand the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I would also expect Senator Mc Cain to echo the bellicose and belligerent tone with Iran that has been the hallmark of the Bush administration. Once the nomination process is over I expect to see the media and the Republicans try and position Senator McCain as another center-right unifier, you know like that one from the 2000 election. What was that guy’s name?

McCain may seem moderate on domestic policy, but make no mistake about it he will continue to try and expand the empire and press for the continued war on terror. My hope is that we as a nation are ready to wake up from the nightmare of 9/11 and are ready to release the world that we have been holding hostage. It is time to let all the hostages go. Senator McCain is not ready to do that. Mr. McCain will continue to expand the gap between wealthy and poor by continuing the voodoo economic policies of George W. Bush. The Republicans feel they can afford McCain in the White House for now since they have been able to stack the Supreme Court under Bush. I would not be surprised if John McCain did not pick Mike Huckabee as his Vice-Presidential nominee to placate the social conservatives and keep them from staying home in November.

Despite the groaning from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and the other talking heads the social conservatives will fall into line like they always do, especially if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. The social conservatives may not like McCain, but they hate Hillary and Bill Clinton and the thought of them being back in the White House is enough to bring them out in droves. They will not be voting for McCain they will be voting against Hillary. They will hold their noses and vote for McCain.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/us/01conservatives.html?hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/us/01conservatives.html?hp

Read more!

What is This Election About?

Despite all the campaign rhetoric and the candidate’s policy “distinctions”, what will this election really boil down to? Will it be differences in policy? Will it be woman over man or black over white? Will it be who supported and voted for the war and who didn’t? Will it be the experience of one candidate over another’s lack of experience? I believe that unlike any election in recent memory this one will not turn on the white papers of one candidate over another’s. While policy is important to many voters for a lot of voters if there isn’t a wide distinction this will not sway their support. It troubles me to say it, but this election will be about something intrinsic that will not be easily defined. It will be based for many on the individual voters “feelings” about one candidate over another.

One of the problems with being in the blogosphere is that people have a tendency to believe that the majority of the country feels like they do. Many bloggers mistakenly believe that the majority of the country is as politically astute as they are and if you are surrounded by other bloggers it becomes extremely difficult to break the cycle of disbelief. The majority of the country is not as liberal, progressive, or anti-religious as the blogosphere. I think many times bloggers fall into the same trap that ensnares the Beltway crowd and that is tunnel-vision. I encounter a lot of people in my daily life that don’t blog or barely use the internet and they have little desire to do so. For many of these people elections aren’t issue driven, they try to achieve a “sense” about a particular candidate. I think they seek a level of identification and empathy from a candidate.

Richard Goodwin recalled in his riveting 1988 memoir “Remembering America”, the following about JFK and his 1960 campaign:

Looking back almost 30 years later, Mr. Goodwin summed it up this way: “He had to touch the secret fears and ambivalent longings of the American heart, divine and speak to the desires of a swiftly changing nation — his message grounded on his own intuition of some vague and spreading desire for national renewal.”

In other words, Kennedy needed two things. He needed poetry, and he needed a country with some desire, however vague, for change.[1]

For the majority of voters not associated with the blogosphere their search is not in the details, but in the individual. Many voters will never meet the candidates in person, so they have to rely on word of mouth and buzz from family and friends. This may not be the most logical way to elect a President, but in a country with American Idol what do you expect? How else can you explain George W. Bush being elected twice? It certainly wasn’t based on intelligence, issues, or experience. And while it may be argued that George Bush is precisely the reason we should not elect Presidents in this fashion, I believe the practice will continue into the foreseeable future. This may be a bad omen for Barack Obama.

Because George Bush has done such a monumental job of screwing up there could be a backlash of voters weary of a candidate lacking experience or exacting details on policy. But there doesn’t appear to be much recoil according to the polls and the endorsements that he continues to receive. The experience factor didn’t seem to get much traction for the Clinton campaign, much to the chagrin of Bill Clinton and the detailed policy argument either, because no one had more detailed policy statements than John Edwards. The supporters of Barack Obama are connecting on a more personal level than previous campaigns. To many in the blogosphere this is a frightening development and cause for concern. The detractors feel that it is naïve to rely on one’s intuition or a “sense” of the candidate. I mean let’s face it how often have we’ve been misled or flat out wrong relying on this criteria? But yet what they ignore is how many times we have been right about people based on the same criteria.

Another big concern that is often expressed is that supporters of Obama are hoisting onto the candidate their own unattainable and impractical expectations. The argument is that a one-term Senator without the benefit of years of experience cannot hope to change years of entrenched warfare or understand the complexities of the Washington bureaucracy. He doesn’t nor do his supporters understand that change in Washington is done in infinitesimal degrees, according to these people it is a pipe dream to believe otherwise, a “fairytale” if you will. This I think explains the difference between Obama’s supporters and the supporters of the other campaigns; they are willing to dream beyond what is possible and to believe in something that has never been done. Is it a fairytale or a pipe dream to believe in these things? Maybe, but if we hadn’t dreamed impossible dreams a lot of the things we now take for granted would not be here.

Loretta Sanchez, who has been in Congress for 12 years, twice as long as her sister, scoffed at what she implied was her sister’s immaturity and lack of gratitude. “Her one comment was, ‘He reminds me of John F. Kennedy.’ I was like, You weren’t even born when he died!” she said, laughing. “She was tilting at windmills, with stars in her eyes and her feet off the ground.”

“My sister benefited from so many things the Clintons did,” Loretta Sanchez continued, mentioning student loan legislation. Obama supporters “don’t understand what it took to get all those things done.”[2]

It’s not that they don’t understand, it is just that they want more. There was so much left undone and still not getting done. Just because they are grateful for the past doesn’t mean they have to get stuck there. Life has brought new challenges that are going to require new solutions. These solutions must come from all of us dreamers and realists alike, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and the old and the young. All of us committed together cannot be denied regardless of the dirty tricks and Rovian tactics used against us.

[1] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n22_v40/ai_6790796
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/us/politics/04family.html

Read more!