Yeah, but .. Wright wasn't Wrong.

Now that Barack Obama has officially repudiated the comments of his former paster Jeremiah Wright, and dropped him from involvement in his campaign - followed by a very clear and inspiring statment that of what he does believe and how he intends to address the issues of America not with rancor and outrage, but with hope and positivity -

Might we take just a second to consider the fact that despite the high intensity, voltage and volume of his of rhetoric - even if many would fairly disagree with how he said it - most of what Rev Wright said was absolutely 100% True?

And might we also consider - that very fact may be why this issue is so upsetting to some people?

I know a lot of people would like this issue to simply go away, but I think that's like trying to sweep a hand-grenade under the rug and thinking it'll won't hurt when it goes off.

It's not going away. Period.

It's going to keep going off - again and again.

Today we've had an attempt to help prove that Barack is not a bald-faced liar and really wasn't in the pews during any of these inflammatory sermons.

At the same time Bill Kristol has already shot off his big fat mouth, and hit himself in the dick on that same issue. No, Barack's wasn't in the pews at Trinity on July 22, 2007.

Problem is whether Barack was in the pews or not is missing the key point, and that's the content of what Rev. Wright was saying.

There have been a couple of really well written diaries on this - expressing the simply honest truth that when (most) white people listen to Rev Wright they hear something very different from what (most) Black people hear, and sometimes some translation is required.

In the 60's and 70's black power rhetoric was common, however in our age in which we are in full denial of our national culpability in some very violent and unsavory deeds, this sounds like the essence of treason. How dare anyone speak ill of America after 9/11. We live in era in which patriotism is uncontested. By patriotism I don't mean the simple love of ones country but the idiotic symbolic display of this adoration.

What is difficult for many white Americans to understand is that patriotism is intimately linked with white supremacy--see FoX News if you have any doubts. Black men and women, from the south side of Chicago who have enlisted and fought in every war this country waged returned home to segregation, racial violence and the grind of everyday bigotry. They don't wear flag lapel pins, they don't joyously sing "God Bless America" at every opportunity--why the hell would they. Wright is the pastor of THIS community. And their experience vis-a-vis patriotism is complicated, and completely untranslatable to white America--liberals and reactionaries alike.

So what did he say - and what is the translation?

Wright's "God Damn America" Statement:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

One could and should quibble with details. The US Government did not give drugs to the Black Community - however, following the Crack Cocain that flooded American streets during the 80's it was discovered that some of these drugs did come from the Contras and the CIA failed to notify the DOJ of this for over two years.

By the CIA's own account, they stood by and let it happen. This is partly why former police officer and drug trafficker Ronald Lister claimed that he was "under the protection of the CIA" when he was eventually arrested in 1986. He wasn't, but there were reasons for him to make the allegation.

There is still today a 100 to 1 disparity between the level of punishment meted out for crack cocain as there is for powdered cocain.

Crack Cocain is cheaper and commonly used by people with less money than Powerdered Cocain - and by the way - far more of those poorer people are black than white - however most overal drug users are white.

According to the federal Household Survey, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%.

Right now the percentage on Americans under incarceration is higher than any other industrialized nation - including China. An extradinarily high percentage of of these people are black.

From the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

# In 2001, an estimated 2.7% of adults in the U.S. had served time in prison, up from 1.8% in 1991 and 1.3% in 1974.

# Lifetime chances of a person going to prison are higher for

-- men (11.3%) than for women (1.8%)
-- blacks (18.6%) and Hispanics (10%) than for whites (3.4%)

The bottom line is this although Black's don't use more drugs than anyone else, because of the reality of profiling, three-strikes and disparate sentencing - they are almost three times more likely than Hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail.

Why is this so important, besides the fact that it is causing a near genocide among the black population?

Well, many people tend to say that black people should be well "over" the Slavery issue - but as I often mention slavery isn't over according to the 13th Amendment.

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

We have justice system which is tilted toward the incarceration of black men, and as such has the constitutional option to put these people into Forced Labor inside a $multi-billion Prisons for Profit industry at any time, and there is no legal recourse for this. None.

Wright's point - with the weight of all these facts behind him - is that all the above is a crime against humanity, and - in his view - a crime against God. Taking away the value of man's labours - is Theft!

Thou Shalt Not Steal!

These policies have visited a Genocide onto Black's in America.

Thou Shalt Not Murder.

I would disagree with Wright's statement of "God Damn America" in general terms - but when you get into specifics, doesn't America bear a weight of responsibility for all the above?

Doesn't it need to serve penance?

Shouldn't America be asking for forgiveness for it's sins?

If you can look at all this and not have an epithet on the edge of your lips, as I've said before, I suspect your soul may be in need of defribbilation.

Wright's "9/11 was our own fault" Statement:

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost,"

It's obvious that the death toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki far outstrips those who lost their life in New York or Washington on 9/11/01.

We have supported actions by the Israelis - such as assasinations and bombings carried out by Mossad - which would certainly fit the definition of "Terrorism."

It would be fair to argue that all of these actions were taken as a last resort as an effort to prevent even further loss of life, but I think that distinction is generally lost on the hundreds of thousands of victims and survivors, don't you?

This is what Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Desk has written about why we were attacked in his book Imperial Hubris.

My thesis is like the one that shaped Through Our Enemies' Eyes, namely, that ideas are the main drivers of human history and, in the words of Perry Miller, the American historian of Puritanism, are "coherent and powerful imperatives to human behavior." In short, my thesis is that the threat Osama bin Laden poses lies in the coherence and consistency of his ideas, their precise articulation, and the acts of war he takes to implement them. That threat is sharpened by the fact that bin Laden's ideas are grounded in and powered by the tenets of Islam, divine guidelines that are completely familiar to most of the world's billion-plus Muslims and lived by them on a daily basis. The commonality of religious ideas and the lifestyle they shape, I would argue, equip bin Laden and his coreligionists with a shared mechanism for perceiving and reacting to world events. "Islam is not only a matter of faith and practice," Professor Bernard Lewis has explained, "it is also an identity and a loyalty -- for many an identity and loyalty that transcends all others." Most important, for this book, the way in which bin Laden perceives the intent of U.S. policies and actions appears to be shared by much of the Islamic world, whether or not the same percentage of Muslims support bin Laden's martial response to those perceived U.S. intentions. "Arabs may deplore this [bin Laden's] violence, but few will not feel some pull of emotions," British journalist Robert Fisk noted in late 2002. "Amid Israel's brutality toward Palestinians and America's threats toward Iraq, at least one Arab is prepared to hit back."

In the context of the ideas bin Laden shares with his brethren, the military actions of al Qaeda and its allies are acts of war, not terrorism; they are part of a defensive jihad sanctioned by the revealed word of God, as contained in the Koran, and the sayings and traditions of the Prophet Mohammed, the Sunnah. These attacks are meant to advance bin Laden's clear, focused, limited, and widely popular foreign policy goals: the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state; the removal of U.S. and Western forces from the Arabian Peninsula; the removal of U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands; the end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India; the end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera; and the conservation of the Muslim world's energy resources and their sale at higher prices. To secure these goals, bin Laden will make stronger attacks in the United States -- complemented elsewhere by attacks by al Qaeda and other Islamist groups allied with or unconnected to it -- to try to destroy America's resolve to maintain the policies that maintain Israel, apostate Muslim rulers, infidel garrisons in the Prophet's birthplace, and low oil prices for U.S. consumers. Bin Laden is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world, not necessarily to destroy America, much less its freedoms and liberties.

The fact is that Bin Laden attacked us on 9/11 to Change U.S. Foreign Policy, not because he "Hated Freedom." Those really were our own "Chicken's coming home to roost", and denying that fact doesn't change the fact.

This isn't to say that Bin Laden is correct - he connects a series of dots in his arguments that simply don't flow together - only that he had reasons for what he did and what he is doing, and those reason have a strong resonance with the muslim world. He's not a "madman", he's a warrior and strategist.

It's true that Hillary Clinton has probably never been called the "N-Word" (Although we all know she has been called the "B-Word") She probably won't ever know what it's like to live the life of a black man, but I think she can get a pretty good idea. Even what he said here is "True", albiet somewhat irrelevant. You don't have to be black to care - the Freedom Riders cared, and died, to help black people.

The real question should be one of empathy, not skin tone.

Still the bottom line is this: America has grossly mistreated - and continues to fail - Black and Muslim people (as well as Native Americans, Latino, Women and many others), it should be fair to say it's high time that America looked itself in the mirror before it points fingers.

It's well past time America took some RESPONSIBILITY for itself, and finally changed course.

This isn't to say that every person in America is racist, or anti-Muslim - or a sexist - that isn't necessary. Most of America has never been racist, ever. Not even before the Civil War, however when bigoted policies were implemented then - most people did nothing.

After the Civil War and the promise of reconstruction turned to the bitter ash of Jim Crow - most people weren't wearing White Sheets - Most People Did Nothing.

When Black men were being regularly lynched in the early 20th Century - most people weren't holding the rope - Most people did nothing.

Today, when the Votes of African-Americans are Caged and Denied, when the Terrorism of Lynching Nooses are hung in Jena, LA, when the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ is racially purged, when an entire American City DROWNED - Most people have Done Nothing.

We may be legitimately annoyed that Rev. Wright's language was over-the-top, we may legitimately condemn that language - but we should also recognize that unlike Jerry Falwell's blaming AIDs and the ACLU for 9/11, or John McCain supporter John Hagee blaming the "Sin of New Orleans" for Katrina...

A lot of what Jeremiah Wright said had a point, and that point should be listened too even as we disagree with HOW it was said.

As I said at the beginning, I suspect the intensity of "Outrage" at Rev Wright's comments may be directly related to people desperate desire to "distance themselves" from all the above. People figure they weren't alive during Slavery so they don't have any responsibility for it's after effects.

"It's not my fault.

Leave me alone. Just Get OVER IT. My Family has had it tough too, quite whining. Just Stop Talking about it and things will get better..."

No, sorry it won't.

They say we (America - that is, WE are America) don't need to apologize for slavery because no one is left alive who suffered it or inflicted it.

Ok, but then when they "ended" slavery 150 years ago we also supposedly guaranteed blacks "equal" protections (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment) didn't they?

Gee, How'd that go?

Why did it take almost another 100 years for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts to be passed? Seems to me we were all supposed to be "over this" in 1868, yet we're still fighting and dying over it in 1968 and we're still fighting over it now.

Alright, Never mind the "Slavery card".

What's the excuse for not Apologizing for the Open Segregation that took place during that following 100 years after Slavery? What's the excuse for not apologizing for Jim Crow? For Lynchings? For Profiling and filling our Prisons with Black and Brown men, then turning them into Indentured Servant Factories?

Where's the Apology for Neglecting the Survivors of Katrina?

And btw an apology doesn't mean it's your fault, it may mean that you admit you give a crap. Apologizing is admitting that it was - and is - WRONG!

Why is that so hard?

Some people may not want to hear it, they may consider anytime anyone brings this up to be "carrying a racial grievance", but if America - as a nation and a people - seems to have such a problem admitting when it's done something wrong - particularly when it's so OBVIOUSLY WRONG - then it (we) clearly don't have what it takes to go a different course.

Before we can reasonably expect anyone to "Get Over" any of this - before we can "Get Past" it - we have to STOP DOING IT!

Then we have to fix it, and we can begin to heal it. So far we've done none of the above.

Good non-bigoted people have to be willing to stand up and say - No More, instead of "Go Away". "Stop bothering me, I've got texting to do..."

The fact that we haven't done any of the above is why people like Rev. Wright will continue be out there - screaming at the pews.

Want them to go away?

Start fixing it.

Don't just stand by - Stand UP!

Stop claiming that anyone who points out the truth is using emotional blackmail or "Playing the Race Card." (Sometimes they are, but sometimes they aren't!) Don't stand on the sidelines and claim "It's not my problem" - it's ALL of our problem, black and white Americans alike.

Doing so won't just benefit Black people, doing so won't hurt Whites - it will only benefit America.

Vyan

Clinton Campaign Gets PWNED!

From the NPR News Blog:

Wednesday morning, the Clinton campaign sent reporters and bloggers covering the campaign a statement that consisted of questions and comments under the title of "Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground."

The Obama campaign's communications department decided to annotate those questions and comments with some comments of their own... and boy, they held nothing back.

Below you'll find the annotated e-mail that has been making the rounds of the media. The Obama campaign's comments are in bold.

To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far -- every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans -- all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.

["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.

But now Obama's support has dropped among all these groups.

[That's true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it's difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]

In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.

[I'm sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn't make any difference. Right]

Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?

[You mean besides the fact that we're ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]

In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama's readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.

[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]

So the late deciders -- those making up their minds in the last days before the election -- have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.

[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]

If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us ... I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]

[Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]

Ferraro's Racial/Gender Flip-Flop Exposed

In the midst of this latest racial dustup brought to us in prime-time yet again by the Clinton Campaign and their Scorched Earth Strategy, today Randy Rhodes pointed out that just over one year ago - Geraldine Ferraro was saying the exact opposite to what she said the other day.

From the New York Times Dec 2006

"All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage," said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, "It’s easier — emphatically so."

Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. "I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American," said Ms. Ferraro. "There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true."

"Women are 51 percent of the population," she added.

Oh, no she Di'in't? Oh yes, my friends, she did.

Not that I find the game of Quien es mas Victim particularly seemly , this is the game that Clinton and her various surrogates (Rendell, Johnson, Wolfson) have forced us to play. Then play it we shall - to Win.

This week Ferraro says:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

A year ago it was a very different story. Might that change have something to with the how the preference for the Democratic Nominee has also shifted over time?

Here's another excerpt from the NYT article:

By contrast, for all the excitement stirred by Mr. Obama, it is much less certain that an African-American could win a presidential election. Not as many blacks have been elected to prominent positions as women. Some high-profile black candidates — Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat running for the Senate in Tennessee, and Michael Steele, a Republican Senate candidate in Maryland — lost in November. And demographics might be an obstacle as well: black Americans are concentrated in about 25 states — typically blue ones, like New York and California. While black candidates cannot assume automatic support from black voters, they would at least provide a base. In states without big black populations, the candidate’s crossover appeal must be huge.

Yeah that explains Obama's victories in all those really "Black" States like Iowa. And Alaska. And Connecticut. And Idaho. And Maine. And Kansas. And Nebraska. And Utah.

Many analysts suggested that changing voter attitudes can best be measured in choices for governors, since they, like presidents, are judged as chief executives, rather than legislators. There will be one black governor next year — Deval L. Patrick in Massachusetts, the second in the nation since Reconstruction.

On Monday - David Paterson will make that two whole Black Governors, and still only the Third since Reconstruction. Wow, we've come a long way Baby. Out of curiosity, how many women Governors do we have?

By contrast, women will be governors of nine states, including Washington, Arizona and Michigan, all potential battleground states in 2008, a fact that is no doubt viewed favorably by advisers to Mrs. Clinton.

If it's so easy for Black people to make great political strides then Shirley Chisholm should have been our first Female President back in the 70's.

Clearly Ed Rendell seems to think differently:

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most visible supporters, said some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival Barack Obama because he is black.

"You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday’s paper.

Maybe Geralding and Ed need to have a little private chat since their talking points seem to be working at cross purposes.

It's not like Barack Obama hasn't had to face incessent attacks on his patriotism and smears that he is a stealth muslim. Attacks which were filtered through the Clinton Campaign by her Iowa County Chair.

I've obtained a copy of the email sent to Jones County, Iowa Democratic Chairman Gary Hart, by a Clinton volunteer.

It's one of a couple Obama-Muslim-smear emails circulating widely, and one of the ones Jonathan Martin and I wrote about in October. It's probably the most vicious of them: It states the underlying hint -- that Obama is some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate -- explicitly.

The email was sent by someone identified only as "Judy" whose email address begins jcheroke. The Clinton campaign has said they are now asking a volunteer county coordinator to leave the campaign when the email came to light.

It's not like he hasn't been accused of being a drug user/dealer (even though all the evidence indicates that most drug user are white)

According to the federal Household Survey, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%.

This fact didn't stop Robert Johnson from putting forth his cheap allegations, did it?

It didn't stop Hillary herself from accusing Barack of being affiliated with - "A Slum-Lord."

Just how "Black" can Barack Obama be after he's been actually accussed of "Acting White" by Jesse Jackson...

As serious as the controversy in Jena, La., is, there’s no reason for a veteran civil rights leader to accuse an African-American presidential candidate of "acting white" simply because he hasn’t emphasized the issue to the leader’s liking. And yet, that’s exactly what’s happened with Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama.

His "whiteness" is a sentiment that has been repeated by Conservatives such as Glen Beck.

BECK: Yeah, I — you know, I was driving in today, and I was seeing — because I saw this piece with him on 60 Minutes — and I thought to myself, he [Obama] is — he’s very white in many ways.

GIORDANO: Uh-huh.

BECK: And I thought to myself: Gee, can I even say that? Can I even say that without somebody else starting a campaign saying, "What does he mean, ‘He’s very white?’ " He is. He’s very white.

Yeah, you can say it Glen - you just sound like a freaking asshat, if you do.

Geraldine Ferraro's comments are the same as Beck's, and the same as Rush Limbaugh's horrifically unfunny "Barack the Magic Negro" song - but the sad part is that Ferraro and Johnson and all these others aren't doing it because their racists, they're doing it because they think that's the only thing they can do to win.

They might as well go completely for broke and start talking about how Barack Hussein Obama is the Anti-Christ, except that Glen Beck has already beaten them to that particular low road.

I'm sure the Clinton Camp is sorry they didn't think of that one first.

I was more than willing to defend Bill Clinton from unfair and premature accusations of racism simply for invoking the name of MLK and pointing out the strategic volume shift that Barack employed to modulate his opposition to the Iraq War when it became political inconvenient - particularly when Barack had invoked MLK first - but this is far past the silly point, it's become frankly - fucking disgusting.

How many ridiculous more cheap stereotypes can the people pile on with?

This is not an accident. This is their Strategy. This is a clear and obvious pattern and only seeks to underscore what Samantha Power said just before she was ushered out of the Obama Campain on a Rail:

Hillary is a Monster.

If this is the way she wants to run her campaign, if this is the way she plans to run the country - Yes, this is Monstrous - and Yes, she is a Monster.

And that's sad and tragic, because not are these tactics as slimey and disgusting - they also aren't going to work.

In the end the only persons who've truly been hurt by this are Ferraro, Rendell, Johnson and Hillary Clinton herself.

Barack will go on. Hillary won't.

Vyan

Playing the Affirmative Action Card - and Still Losing

We've all heard or read the comments by now. The comments which have quite literally taken the Hillary Campaign far over the edge of common sense.

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept

We all realize this is just more of the Clinton Kitchen Sink Scorched Earth Policy of doing everything she can to destroy the Democratic Party if she can't be the Nominee.

But....

It should be noted that Geraldine Ferraro also said that she herself wouldn't have been the 1984 Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee if she had not been a woman, despite her being fully qualified for the job, and we all know what this is code for.

She is saying that Barack Hussein Obama is the "Affirmative Action" Candidate.

The funny thing about it is - (as I say this in all seriousness as a black man myself) - she may actually have a point, but not in the way she apparently believes.

First off, I want to remind anyone who is just reading my comments in this regard that not that long ago I pointed out how I felt that Barack Obama was not the "Black" Candidate.

What I pointed out then, and still maintain, is that being a Black American has to do with far more than just your skintone. It's about having experience with and a connection to Black Culture, a culture of suffering and struggle of striving against insurmountable odds (Jesse Owens, The Tuskeegee Airmen, Jackie Robinson, Mohammad Ali, Benjamin Carver, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jimi Hendrix, Prince, Sidney Poitier, Tiger Woods) with incredible talent and perserverance to not only Win - but to set a completely new standard.

Being Black (as opposed to African) is a matter of who you are in response to Americas 400 year long mistreatment of us, not what you look like.

It can be very difficult to live up to these achievements. Sometimes Black Folk spend a lot of their energy actually trying to live them down because the burden can be sometimes too much to bare. Also there are many white people, from the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Eric Burden and the Animals, Eric Clapton, Stevie Ray Vaughn and many thousands of others who have felt and shown a clear link to black culture through black music - so you don't even have to have black skin to deeply feel what I'm describing here.

However for Barack, as a bi-racial son of an immigrant who grew up in Hawii - I really didn't really see how much his background connected him to any of that (for one thing - he really really can't dance), but I never precluded the possibility that like Clapton and Vaughn - he could still hear the music.

However with Ferraro's recent attacks - I think Barack has clearly had more than his fair share of the "Black Experience".

My main problem with her comments isn't with the first portion, because her implication that some for of Affirmative Action has benefitted Barack in my opinion isn't a bad thing.

Just a reminder: There's NOTHING WRONG WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The point of AA is - doing something positive to help improve a problematic situation. Those who have opposed it, particularly during the 90's have all argued from a perspective of jealousy, that you can't possibly do something positive for one person or group without also doing something negative to someone else.

Most of those argueing against AA ignored the 1978 Bakke Decision which banned all forms of "Quota Systems" which might produce the type of negative reaction that so many decried as an unacceptable price to pay for 400 years of abuse, disenfranchisement, broken promises and oppression.

In the admissions system devised by U.C Davis, minority studies received a "Plus" rating in order to help the school achieve diversity goals. This isn't to say they were less qualified, only that they received bonus points for being members of a minority group. The SCOTUS deemed this a Quota System and struck it down.

We (the Court) have never approved a classification that aids persons perceived as members of relatively victimized groups at the expense of other innocent individuals in the absence of judicial, legislative, or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations.

So that accusation that six years later in 1984 that Ferraro herself was receiving "Plus Points" for being a woman is itself rather problematic that very thing had been ruled Unconstitutional.

Since Bakke federal attempts at Affirmative Action have been increasing limited in making adjustments to admissions standards, but have instead had to look at widening the recruitment pool through outreach. Instead of simply looking in your own backyard for qualified candidates - AA programs administered by the EEOC and OFCCP (both of which appear to now be defunct under Bush) have had attempted to help make more minority applicants better qualified to compete.

The Bottom Line is: Real Affirmative Action means - making everyone more competitive, not giving special breaks to those who don't need it.

Has Barack Obama been "Lucky?"

Hell, Yes he has, but he's also eminently qualified just as Ferraro herself claims she was back in 1984.

So where does that leave us? With this little gem.

Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

No, people are not attacking you because you're white - Geraldine. They're attacking you because the assertion is patently false. Was Jesse Jackson "Lucky" when he ran against you in 1984 - yet unlike Barack, never achieved front runner status? Was Al Sharpton Lucky? How about Alan Keyes whom Barack defeated in order to enter the Senate, something you failed at three times?

Barack was only the third Black person to enter the U.S. Senate - EVER. I have two women Senators representing my state (California) right this second. Not to mention Olympia Snowe, Claire McCaskil, Kay Bailey Hutchinsen, etc...

And on this "women have suffered more than black men thing..." Although it's fair to say that the 15th Amendment gave Blacks the right to vote long before Women achieved it - the fact is that the right wasn't protected until 1968 when the Voting Rights Act was passed tends to mitigate the "advantage" that Blacks supposedly enjoyed.

One game we shouldn't be playing is "Whose victimhood is greater" - because there are no winners on that playing field. None.

The idea of helping those who clearly need it to help themselves is a core Democratic Principle. It's a sad day when the unbridled ambition and unchecked ego of one candidate has grown so far out of proportion that they would actually throw such a core principle not only under the bus, but to stop and back-up over it several times is somewhat shocking, but also in some ways sobering and healthy.

Repubs have long accused Dems and Liberals of being a hateful, spiteful, vindictive angry mob. We can now see that for Hillary and her supporters - that appears to be true.

But not all of us are with Hillary.

Not all of us think the world is "Zero Sum", we don't all agree with Terry McCauliff that we all need is to "Toughen Up", that the only way to win is to go lower than your opponent would ever expect.

Sometimes you can actually win with the better ideas, and simply focus on those ideas while pointing out that your opponent is throwing mud only because that's the only idea they have.

If the way that Hillary has run this compaign is any reflection on how she would run the WhiteHouse, she absolutely HAS. TO. LOSE. I wouldn't even accept her as Veep. Not a chance.

This can not be the way we conduct foreign policy. This can not be the way we deal with Congress. This can not be the way that America addresses it's own people.

We have to stand firm, and fight The Good Fight. Fairly. Honestly. Against insurmoutable odds with talent and fortitude.

We have to do what Black and many other oppressed People have been doing for Centuries.

WIN!

Lastly does Barack Obama's experience as "Black" man give him a unique perspective into how he would relate to America, and how he would relate to much of the rest of the world - particularly Africa?

I damn sure hope it does, considering what piss-poor job every other President has done with "Black Issues" over the last 40 years. Yeah, his being Black is a "Plus" in my column. I ain't to proud to say it.

Yeah, He's Black and I'm Proud.

It's past time we all openly embraced our inner (and outer) blackness.

Vyan

Kingston Mainstreaming the Obama Patriotism Smears

Last Night on Dan Abrams, the program after Olbermann, Rep Jack Kingston went on the air and managed to repeat the Patriotrism Smears against Obama which have been circulating the internet, and then proclaims that it's not an attack, it's just a "little banter".

On MSNBC’s Live With Dan Abrams last night, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) said it was okay to "question" Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) patriotism because he doesn’t regularly wear an American flag lapel pin. Kingston claimed that "everybody" in politics "wears them."

The funny thing about this, besides the smug little "I've just discovered Kryptonite" smile on Kingston's face, is the fact that while he's attacking Obama for not wearing a flag lapel pin - he himself isn't wearing a flag lapel pin!

There's just a bunch of things that Kingston gets completely wrong in this beside his own hypocracy about the pin that Abrams doesn't catch him on.

Kingston: His reason for not wearing the pin is convoluted.

Obama: "You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.

"Instead," he said, "I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

"You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that’s what we have to lead with, our values and ideals," Obama said.

This isn't "convoluted" - Obama is taking a stand against false patriotism - which is exactly what Kingston in presenting.

Kingston also flat out lies:

"Obama won't say the Pledge of Allegiance"

Except for the fact that the picture in question that has been shown around the net, which even my mother receiving a copy from a co-worker who claimed it was "scary", isn't of the pledge of allegiance, it was a picture taken during the national anthem, and there's really isn't a requirement for people to have their hand over their heart during the national anthem.

The photograph was taken on September 16, 2007, at Senator Tom Harkin's annual steak fry festivities in Iowa, an important ritual for Democratic presidential hopefuls. Contrary to the e-mails attacking Obama for disrespecting the flag, the candidates were not reciting the pledge of allegiance. They were standing for the national anthem.

It's an option, but it's not a requirment.

Plus there are pictures of Obama singing the national anthem and he does have his hand over his heart.

kingston says that Michelle Obama should come out and explain that she doesn't hate America, but then again why should she do that since she made it perfectly clear exactly what she was proud of in the first place - all you need to do is pay complete attention.

"What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."

Kingston: It's just banter, but it works. Apparently it's like scratching fingernails on the chalkboard to the leftists to say "Barack Hussein Obama".

Well it's not like that to me for two reasons because I've known the name "Hussein" mostly in reference to King Hussein of Jordon our long-time ally in the middle east. Second there is the fact that his name is actually Barack Hussein Obama Jr., Kingston is using that hame to attack his Kenyan father not our current democratic front-runner.

So what do we have so far? Obama will say the Pledge of Allegiance, no one, has provided evidene to the contrary. He sometimes wears a flag lapel-pin when he feels like it (just like Kingston and for that matter - John McCain), he will put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, his wife was proud that for the first time "people were being unified around some basic common issues", and there's nothing wrong with having "Hussein" as your middle name.

But that isn't all the right-wing is coming after Obama for - not by a long shot.

Real Time w/ Bill Marr featuring David Frum, Jack kingston & Matt Taiibe

Frum attacks Obama over the idea of meeting with not just our friend but our enemies.

He's been drinking his own bath-water, he thinks he will apply that "Obama Magic" to meeting our enemies.

Well it's not like John Kennedy met with Krushchev, or Nixon went to China or Reagan talked to Gorbachev. It's not like any of those efforts helped turn some of those "enemies" into friends.

Except that they did, eventually.

Barack is offering a genuine different approch to governing, which does include reaching out across the isle - or across the ocean - but also means defying meaningless convention - like flag-pins, and refusing to Talk to people as if having a conversation is itself some kind of concession.

Frankly, there isn't a single thing here the Kingston gets right - not one. He claims that Obama has "never accomplished anything" in the Senate or attempted to "reach across the isle" - except of course for the Ethics Bill and the Lugar-Obama Bill to fight weapons proliferation and the... oh, you get the picture. He's yet again playing the Fear Card, the only one in the Republican Deck. But it appears that Kingston and his fellow cohorts in terror such as Bill Cunningham, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are going to have to put forth these smears - without the aid of John McCain.

In Ohio yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) appropriately apologized after right-wing talk radio host Bill Cunningham opened his campaign rally by pejoratively referring to Sen. Barack Obama’s middle name Hussein while calling him "a hack." "I did not know about these remarks, but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them," McCain told reporters.

McCain’s repudiation stung Cunningham, who bellowed against the senator on his show later in the day. Cunningham claimed McCain "threw me under the bus for the national media" and then said that he would now "throw" his "support behind Hillary Clinton."

Right-wing radio host Mark Levin, who also blogs for National Review, called McCain a "loser" for distancing himself from Cunningham’s caustic comments. Listen to it:

Because he won’t stoop to their low rhetorical level, right-wing radio is now telling McCain that he can "say good-bye to any hope of winning over the conservative base." Apparently McCain doesn’t have enough hate for "hate radio."

So much for the post New York Time Lobbying Story after-glow.... McCain's honeymoon with the Radical Reich-wing seems to be over already.

If Barack does become the Democratic nominee, we will see many more of these attacks - but if John McCain continues to repudiate them we just might actually see something else. We just might see these types of cheap smear and phony patriotism reduced to the dustbin of history where they belong.

Patriotism isn't about symbols, it's about action! It's not about whether you put your hand over your heart, it's about whether you'll take a bullet for your buddy - whether you put your hand over their wounds to staunch the bleeding, whether you'll help take that bullet OUT of him by making sure HE HAS HEALTHCARE TOO - it's about whether you'll fight for you're fellow American - your fellow man - not just who you'll fight against.

We have to remember that Kingston and Frum are part of the party that distributed purple-heart band-aids in order to denegrate the service of a man who won the Silver Star and the Bronze Star.

These are the people that attacked children for daring to want health care - gleefully.

These are the people who let an entire American City Drown, then Rot with neglect.

I Got Yer FLAG RIGHT HERE, Kingston!

And where were Bush and McCain while this was going on? Obviously doing their patriotic duty... by having a party. (Can you tell who has a flag-pin and who doesn't in this photo?)

These people don't have the slightest clue what Real Patriotism is.

But Barack does.

"You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals."

Patriotism is being true to your values and ideals, it's not doing your best to copy the tactics of the Khmer Rouge with Waterboarding and wearing a flag-pin while you do it.

Waterboarding Table used by the Khmer Rouge

Of Course they're going to come after Obama on these kinds of issues, because they think it's a "winner" for them, but it's not. This is all that the right-wing can try to do against him - and so I say - Bring It On - Beeyotches

Bring it On.

Vyan

Obama Finally Got Me!

It's taken quite a while, but I finally made the decision to jump into Obama's corner.

I had supported John Edwards, even through Super Tuesday, because Edwards had been the only candidate I saw that was addressing the issues I was most concered about, which was the idea of reviving the American dream for the poor and the middle class. He was the only one with some real Spine!

I thought Hillary was a fine candidate, but most importantly I felt that the primary thrust of her criticisms of Barack - they he was all talk and little action - hadn't been successfully rebutted.

Now they have been.

I've had my problems and concerns with Obama, and I've thought that the petty territorial pissing contest between he and Hillary was just plain wretched.

However, some of this arguement has been important and illustrative.

Obama supporters have been livid at the Clinton campaign for it's various critiques of their candidate. People said they were "playing the race" card (a charge which I take very seriously as a Black Man Myself) but I always felt that it was a completely fair criticism to point out that their is often a difference between the person who may inspire progress and the person who may best implement that progress.

This was the MLK v LBJ arguement. A lot of people were offended by what they saw as diminishing MLK's importance, but the simple fact is he didn't do it alone. The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Public Accomodations Acts would not have made it through Congress if not for a skilled legislator like LBJ twisting arms and glad-handing, pushing, pulling, cajoling and being a tough negotiator for change.

MLK was vitally important to the Civil Rights Movement, but so was LBJ and so was JFK.

CLINTON: But there are differences between us. And I think, in our efforts to draw those contrasts and comparisons, we obviously try to let voters know how we see the world differently.

And I do offer solutions. That's what I believe in and what I have done. And it's what I offer to voters because it's part of my life, over the last 35 years, working to get kids health care, working to expand legal services for the poor, working to register voters, working to make a difference. Because I think that this country has given me so much.

And there are differences between our records and our accomplishments. I have to confess, I was somewhat amused, the other night, when, on one of the TV shows, one of Senator Obama's supporters couldn't.

So I know that there are comparisons and contrasts to be drawn between us. And it's important that voters get that information. So, yes, I do think that words are important and words matter, but actions speak louder than words.

Hillary has given up on trying to out inspire Obama, that ain't gonna happen - but even until today she hasn't given up on the idea that she is a better fighter than Obama, that she knows better how hard the other side will punch back (because she's gotten pummelled before) and what it's going to take to IMPLEMENT Change.

Yes, it may be true that progress doesn't happen at all if you don't have inspiration and that if you don't have Hope then you can't make positive change at all, but what we really need are both. Inspiration and Implementation.

If Obama has had any weakness in my mind - this is it. It's going to take more than just happy talk to get the difficult things we need done through Congress. We need more than just Hope Alone, We're also going to need someone who is also can effectively Implement the things that we Hope for.

I think Barack did a great job of answering this criticism.

OBAMA: Well, I think actions do speak louder than words, which is why over the 20 years of my public service I have acted a lot to provide health care to people who didn't have it, to provide tax breaks to families that needed it, to reform a criminal justice system that had resulted in wrongful convictions, to open up our government and to pass the toughest ethics reform legislation since Watergate, to make sure that we create transparency...

(APPLAUSE)

... to make sure that we create transparency in our government so that we know where federal spending is going and it's not going to a bunch of boondoggles and earmarks that are wasting taxpayer money that could be spent on things like early childhood education.

You know, I think if you talk to those wounded warriors at Walter Reed who, prior to me getting to the Senate, were having to pay for their meals and have to pay for their phone calls to their family while they're recovering from amputations, I think they've said that I've engaged not just in talk, but in action.

So yes, Obama is not just all hat. - he's not just all talk.

He's DONE. STUFF.

And so has Hillary Clinton, but now that that's settled what else is there?

Well, there are some differences in their policies particularly on Health Care and that had a vigorous discussion of that topic - but it's also true that we all know that any election time proposals are going to be completely different by the time the get through the sausage factory of Congress. Nice to see they are both so well versed with the issue, but this isn't a make or break issue for me.

I don't simply want just another place holder in the White House with a (D) by their name. The massive corruption and malfeasance of the Bush Administration is going to take literally decades to clean up and correct. Our international prestige, our integrity, our national infrustructure, our national debt, our trade deficit, our economy and our armed forces have been left in tatters by this Administration.

We've got some serious heavy lifting in front of us.

What Barack showed last night was that he's been able to Implement as much and as well as anyone, and Hillary has made it clear that she's willing and able to FIGHT hard - and even somewhat dirty - to get what she feels will help the American people.

The point where Barack finally got me was when he finally explained why his approach and strategy is critically different from everyone else in the political plain...

OBAMA: Now, I think that Senator Clinton has a fine record and I don't want to denigrate that record. I do think there is a fundamental difference between us in terms of how change comes about. Senator Clinton of late has said: Let's get real. The implication is that the people who've been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional.

(LAUGHTER)

And that, you know, the 20 million people who've been paying attention to 19 debates and the editorial boards all across the country at newspapers who have given me endorsements, including every major newspaper here in the state of Texas.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: You know, the thinking is that somehow, they're being duped, and eventually they're going to see the reality of things.

Well, I think they perceive reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly. What they see is that if we don't bring the country together, stop the endless bickering, actually focus on solutions and reduce the special interests that have dominated Washington, then we will not get anything done. And the reason that this campaign has done so well...

(APPLAUSE)

The reason that this campaign has done so well is because people understand that it is not just a matter of putting forward policy positions.

OBAMA: Senator Clinton and I share a lot of policy positions. But if we can't inspire the American people to get involved in their government and if we can't inspire them to go beyond the racial divisions and the religious divisions and the regional divisions that have plagued our politics for so long, then we will continue to see the kind of gridlock and nonperformance in Washington that is resulting in families suffering in very real ways.

I'm running for president to start doing something about that suffering, and so are the people who are behind my campaign.

Barack is arguing not for what he can do personally - he's arguing for what he can INSPIRE US TO DO.

What he's clearly saying here is that the American People have to have hope and faith in the political process once again, and that once they do the American people have far more power and influence than any corporate lobbyists can have.

OBAMA: The problem we have is that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die. They go to die because the lobbyists...

(APPLAUSE)

They go to die because lobbyists and special interests have a strangle-hold on the agenda in Washington. They go to die in Washington because too many politicians are interested in scoring political points rather than bridging differences in order to get things done.

And so the central premise of this campaign is that we can bring this country together, that we can push against the special interests that have come to dominate the agenda in Washington, that we can be straight with the American people about how we're going to solve these problems and enlist them in taking back their government.

When John Kerry called on Dailykos to help him Filibuster Judge Alito - we answered the call. Alito eventually defeated the filibuster, but the point is that when Kerry originally brought it up he was standing virtually alone. After he called for our help, and we started to bombard Congress with support for Kerry's stance - we changed things. The votes started to flip within a day or two, what seemed impossible suddenly because plausible - then it was possible, then it happened.

And We Did it. Kerry inspired Us, he asked Us to Fight, and We Stood up.

It finally occurred to me that this is what we need. We The People need to push back against the cynicism, push back against the defeatism, push back against the pacifism, push back against the entrenched interests who depend on our non-participation.

We The People need to take control of our nation back.

Hillary is asking that we place our trust in her, Barack is asking that we place our trust IN US.

This is the Change that he's talking about, and let's just think about what that might mean in the long term future.

From Kos today.

Watching Obama build his incredible ground operation across the country, I can't help but hope that this newly built infrastructure stays in place through November.

We must build long term, in every state, toward a solid future progressive majority.

We can help downticket races, even in states where our presidential nominee won't likely win.

And we need to run up the popular vote.

Here's the thing, that infrustructure has to become Permanent. The thing about Barack is that he's not just asking for us to vote for him, his vision also includes those downticket races in the House and Senate where various candidates - both Democrat and Republican - will begin to be judged on whether or not they on Barack's Team or not, whether they are likely to help America move for - or be a Road Block.

Kos Again...

On that last count, LBJ was the last Democrat to win his election by more than 50.1 percent of the vote. Bill Clinton never even broke 50 percent. So it's hard to argue you're a national party when we've been unable to notch a solid national presidential victory in 44 years.

So I want a presidential candidate who won't just fight for every electoral vote in the swing states, and who won't just create new swing states like Virginia, Colorado, Montana and -- can we dream? -- Texas.

I want a presidential candidate who will eat into GOP popular vote advantages everywhere, even in states like Idaho and Alabama, helping cut into the GOP's vote tally. We must mobilize Democrats everywhere, in every state in our nation, to deliver the most dominant Democratic margin of victory in half a century.

Imagine if we begin to turn a significant number of the Red States, Purple? Imagine if we finally start to Drink the GOP's Milkshake?

The issue of "Implementation" becomes almost moot.

If that is what we truly want to do, if this is the direction that we want to go then Hillary Clinton - wonderful pit-fighter though she may be - is not the candidate for the Democratic party, and not the candidate for America.

Barack Obama is.

Vyan

Michelle Obama and the Reframing of American Pride

Yesterday's mini-explosion over Michelle Obama's comments:

"What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- or the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."

What interesting about this isn't just Bill O'Reilly's idiotic ill-advised "not gonna start a lynching party" comments, - gee, thanks for the consideration Bill - but really the very serious disconnect and failure to comprehend the very simple point Michelle was making on the issue of "Pride".

The Cons just don't understand.

How could an adult person in America, not be proud of America?

How could they not feel their heart swell when the vast majority of Americans are completely cynical about politics, where they don't get involved, where they don't think their votes matters or will even get counted, where the factors that affect their lives - from the cost of health care to the collapsing housing markets, collapsing infrastructure, collapsing wages, rising costs, poisoned food, poisoned water, poisoned toys - all remain unresolved and the only hope were supposed to have is continued blind faith in the mystical merry magic of the "Free Markets" to take care of everything for us.

Most of us know this is all a crock. Corporations are not going to take care of us, they're going to take care of their stockholders - their customers and employees be damned. And while corporate lobbyist have the government in a stranglehold, they aren't going to come to anyones rescue - because that might be bad for business to be able to actually get things for free from the government, instead of having to go into debt for school fees and health care fees.

It's really simple. America has not lived up to it's promise, but it CAN. America isn't perfect, it has many flaws - but it can be better. It can be much better than this.

We know that the brooks brothers set doesn't get it, they already think thht American is just fine as it is (for them) and anyone who dares try to make it better just simply "Hates America" - but sometimes the depth of their lack of reality is truly staggering.

Case in point - Brit Hume:

HUME: Yeah, she's -- first time she said in her, I guess, adult life.

HILL: Adult life.

HUME: She -- adult life she'd been proud of America. That's --

HILL: What in the world does that mean?

HUME: Well, it means that she is a liberal, and maybe an arch-liberal.

Why is she a "liberal"? Cuz Liberals Hate America - don't cha know?

And now that Michelle has said how she really feels, they want to know what Obama really feels?

HUME: Is this -- I mean, for example, was he proud when the first President Bush ran Saddam Hussein's army out of Kuwait? Was he proud when the United States went to the rescue and did all that our Navy and other military forces did for the tsunami victims? Was he proud then? Indeed, one might ask her, "You sure you weren't proud then as well?" But I think this was something that she kind of thinks that the -- and there is -- there is this feeling, and it has affected Democratic politicians for a long time, that they are kind of embarrassed by patriotism.

No, what were embarrassed by is the militaristic exploitation of patriotism. We're embarrassed by Jingoism.

Jingoism: (jĭng'gō-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key

n. Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.

Extreme and emotional nationalism, or chauvinism, often characterized by an aggressive foreign policy, accompanied by an eagerness to wage war.

noun

1. an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions [syn: flag waving]

2. fanatical patriotism [syn: chauvinism]

So naturally every element of Hume's example of "Pride" has to do with the U.S. Military, it has nothing to do with the American people themselves and how they've come together to accomplish - well - anything, because America as a nation hasn't done anything dramatic or impressive together during the entirety of Michelle's adult life over the past 20-25 years.

Hey Brit, were you "proud" when America had a better response to the tsunami than it did to the Gulf Coast and let an American City DROWN? We're you proud when while American's were dying of dehydration in the Superdome, when all they needed was some water? Are you proud that we waterboarded Abu Zubaydah and part of the information he gave us about Saddam training Al Qaeda on chemical weapons which Colin Powell told the UN was completely bogus!.

Were you proud when Americans kidnapped Abu Omar and Maher Arar, two innocent muslims who were wrongly accused and tortured by Egypt and Syria because of our mistake.

We're you proud when Tim Griffin Caged the votes of African-American soldiers serving in Iraq just to help George Bush return to the White House?

Is that the America that you love?

It seems to be the America that Cindy McCain loves:

CINDY McCAIN [video clip]: I'm proud of my country. I don't know about you if you heard those words earlier. I'm very proud of my country, and I'm proud to be a person that has voted in elections and I hope that all of you will do so today.

Yeah, you're proud you can vote - even if it's not clear whether that vote will count or not (especially if you hapen to be in Michigan or Florida).

Then there's Ralph Reed:

Now you get this, and the problem is, the reason why I think this isn't going to go away, unless she apologizes quickly, is because it plays into a stereotype about the left wing of the Democratic Party, that it blames America first, that they don't see the greatness of America, and it really makes me wonder as somebody who is roughly about Barack and Michelle's age, what country she grew up in. I mean, I was proud of America when we won the Cold War, and the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union disintegrated. I was proud when we expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. I was proud when we liberated 50 million people from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. I was proud when we provided humanitarian aid to the victims of an earthquake in Iran and to a tsunami in Asia.

Or John Gibson, when he puts Reed's premise to Kirsten Powers and she bats it back like a fastball into deep right field:

GIBSON: Kirsten, let's put it this way: Michelle Obama is finally proud of the U.S. Does that mean that President Barack will blame America first?

POWERS: Well, actually, listening to that little speech that Ralph just gave, I mean, why do people think that about liberals? It's because people do what Ralph just did.

It's true that both Liberals and Conservatives love America. They both love their country, but Conservatives love America the way a five-year old loves their parents. It's an idealized vision where American can do no wrong, where their response is to throw a tantrum when someone points out that Dad has a compulsive gambler and Mom is constantly dipping into the cookie Sherry over it.

Liberals love America, but they want Dad to go into Gambler's Annonymous and Mom to stop drinking. They want America to live up to it's full potential not just kick the neighbor kids ass every few years.

Update:There are plenty of things about America that Liberals are proud of. Most of the time though it's been things that we stopped doing or avoided.

We're proud we stopped Jim Crow and Segregation.

We're proud we stopped denying blacks and women the right to vote.

We're proud we didn't start WWIII over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We're proud we avoided a war with Iran over the Hostages.

We're proud we ended the Cold War.

We're proud we ended the War in Bosnia.

We're proud we helped end the War in Northern Ireland.

We're proud we have the potential to continue bringing these types of values and peace to the rest of the world.

But we won't unless we realize that we MUST get better and be better than we have been. We have to STOP our continued Racial polarization and exploitation, our own willingless to violate international Human Rights standards, and our failure to implement aggressive yet fair-minded diplomatic efforts to promote peace and prosperity.

We have to STOP being proud of our failures, and start being proud of our successes.

Vyan

I'm Still Voting for Edwards on Super Tuesday

Crossposted on Dkos

I agree that both Barack and Hillary are outstanding candidates. Both or either would be a massive improvement for America.

You could contrast "Hope" vs "Experience" all you want, but there really isn't an incredibly huge difference between their positions and what either one of them is likely to do as the new leader of the free world.

I'm not voting for John as a "Protest", or simply as sour grapes because his message was never truly allowed to resonate with the public by the corporate media.

There's one simply reason. One simple thing that America can't afford not to have. Just one thing. One word.

SPINE!

Whether you liked him or not, whether you agreed with him or not - John Edwards fought the good fight. He's repeatedly stood up against the corporations who've been sucking us all dry and for those who had no one else willing to stand for them.

As Poligirl noted yesterday, his true supporters are going nowhere.

"Unity" is a good thing. "Change" is a good thing. But I simply have to ask - "Unity on what issue?"

Change into what exactly?

Have we forgotten what we up against? Do we remember how pissed we were just one year ago? This was how I summarized it back then...

...this pack of rabid criminals running the White House and the Government have got you hopping mad with ignoring Richard Clark, ignoring the Cole, ignoring the PDB, ignoring the attempted invervention on Rice and the Crawford One-on-One with Tenet on Osama, Yellowcake, no al-Qaeda in Iraq, trumped up links between Saddam and 9-11, ignoring the insurgency, ignoring the Iraqi People, ignoring Afghanistan, Body Armor, Abu Ghraib, Tora Bora, Gitmo, revoking Habeaus Corpus, the Katrina aftermath, ignoring both Fact and Science on climate change and stem cells, the Voter Caging, Freedom Fries, the midnight ride to Terry Schiavo's hospice, the Domestic Spying, The NSL's, outing Valerie Plame-Wilson, Diebold, Abramov, Safavian, Guckert, the "fucking faith-based thing", the midnight ride to Ashcroft's bedside, the Partisan Purging of DOJ and Civic Rights Division, Walter Reed, the Cheney Branch of Government and most of all -- the endless lies and bullcrap about all the above.

We thought when the 110th Congress came into power in 2006 that they would change things, right?

How we doin' on Impeachment, eh? Where are we on the penetrating hearings into Bush Administration wrong-doing? Seems to me that Lorita Doan is still in the GSA despite numerous violations of the Hatch Act. When - oh when - will we ever a vote on Contempt of Congress for Miers, Bolton and Rove?

Time and time again, no matter how strong their rhetoric, when Democrats try and move forward their agenda the Republicans would kick them down the stairs and take their lunch money. Conservatives not only broke the all-time world record on obstructionism in the U.S. Senate - they doubled it, while Democrats did literally - nothing.

Ending Torture? Ending the War? Restoring FISA?

Fogeddaboudit!

Each and every time Democrats were more concerned with trying to "reach across the aisle", not appear to "partisan", not "rock the boat" and the results simply haven't been pretty.

It's been disgusting. Fucking Pathetic.

Two and half years ago John Murtha stood up and called for our troops to be pulled out of Iraq. Republicans decided to embarrass him and other Democrats by voting of an ridiculous sham version his bill. Only three Democrats, including Robert Wexler (who had originally voted FOR the Iraq Use of Force), realized the error of his ways and had the backbone to vote against continuing the war.

Before 2006, John Kerry came right to Dailykos, stood up and called for the Filibuster of Alito.

Chris Dodd stood up to stop the FISA Bill.

Russ Feingold started an earthquake when he simply called for George Bush to be Censured. Not Impeached. Not Prosecuted for War Crimes as he should be - just censured.

While all this was happening both Barack and Hillary were right in the middle of it all and not once did they bother to stand up and show some backbone.

Not. One. Time.

Both of them have begun their health care proposals without banning pre-existing conditions, without banning incentives to deny coverage to paying customers (like Nataline Sarkysian), without an absolute unwavering commitment to ensuring that everyone is covered, and that run-away costs will be reined in. The fact is that once either their proposals hit Congress, their only going to get watered down and weakened.

That's not what I have "Hope" for.

There is no question that both Barack and Hillary would be better for America than either McCain or Romney - but right now I don't see any reason to believe that any of this will "change" if either of them becomes President.

Not unless we continue to DEMAND that it changes. Not unless we require that before either of them get our vote, they speak to our issues. That they come directly here - or to Dailykos - just as Kerry, Feingold, Kennedy, JOHN EDWARDS and others have done - and personally show us some spine.

All of these people came directly to the progressive blogosphere to rally our support and fight the good fight, could you imagine Obama or Hillary doing that as President?

Do realize how powerful that would be?

Do you realize that is never going to happen?

Neither of them is the candidate I want. Not yet. There's still time, they can still take a stand on something - anything - between now and November.

There's still a chance that they can show some passion and committment for something besides bickering with each other.

In the meanwhile, my vote on Super Tuesday will go to John Edwards.

Vyan

P.S. I'm not trying to argue that anyone take my position. It's mine, I'm keeping it.

Also this is not an invite for Clintonians and Obamites to try and pull me, at the last minute, toward their candidate. That's not happening. These candidates themselves have had plenty of time to Show me Something that I've been looking for, I've seen ALL the debates - they've had dozens, even hundreds of chances to vote in the Senate, dozens of chances to take a stand in public - to show the backbone that frankly I know that a lot of Dkos realize is what we absolute need - I don't think any surrogates can show me something they don't have.

Is Obama's idea of "backbone" talking to Ahmadiniejad (sic)? Really? That's "Bold"? Hillary's idea of a tough stance is that the Iraq War is all Bush's fault? Puh-lease!

Corporate interests and their lobbyists control this country. They either write the legislation themselves (like the Bankruptcy Bill) or they block it (Medicare Drug Price Negotiation) when it doesn't line the pockets of their overlords.

We absolutely need Public Financing of Campaigns. That is non-negotiable. Political Ads on TV need to be made available for free (paid for with tax offsets) to all candidates on the ballot with equal time requirements. This is the kind of change we need, but Barack and Hillary don't seem to see that.

These guys need a serious wake up call, both of them.

What we need isn't just "Change" - a swapping of the palace guard - it's Progress!

Vyan