Hillary Clinton’s rich friend Lady de Rothschild ambushes Barack Obama

You can click here and throughout to find the actual article. Here're my comments:

“There is a sense of entitlement that almost seems to be inbred,” Panetta said. “They are convinced Hillary is the one who should be assuming the mantle and it’s tough to crack that.”

That pretty much sums up the racists "diehards." The keep saying Obama will have a hard time winning, and that the Party should be concerned first with winning, but they seem not to be able to grasp how much easier a time he'd have winning if they would stop being so spoiled.

She [Rothschild] also resents a lack of effort to pay off Clinton’s $20m campaign debt. “He has provided her with a pittance compared to what the Clintons have given Obama,” Rothschild said. “Her [Hillary Clinton] debt could have been cleared within 10 days. It’s ungracious.”

What is he obliged to provide? What have to Clintons give? How is it ungracious that her debt wasn't cleared in 10 days after that debt was spent being spoiled, criticizing Obama, and characterizing the process as undemocratic thereby delegitiming his win? He's been far too gracious.

She [Rothschild] is particularly incensed by the treatment of Bill Clinton during the primaries, when the former president was accused of playing the race card. “Barack Obama would not stand up and say, ‘It’s outrageous, it’s not permissible’ and speak up for him.”

We have a word for people like Bill who resist facing the consequences of their action: spoiled. Why should Obama have stood up? It's bad enough he propogated lies by separating from Wright. There was no reason for him to stand up for Bill who was clearly playing the race card. Now, I understand how white people play jitz su when you tell them they said something racist by acting like you're call them a racist. But if I may be so bold as to take a line from scripture: "But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' " If white people don't wanna be called racist, the answer is very simple: stop making racist statements!

Slavery Wasn't Abolished in Actuality Until 1951

I have a lot on my mind. Bill Clinton's, "I never made a racist comment." Geraldine Ferraro's lame notion that if Barack Obama chooses any woman besides Hillary Clinton, it will be an insult to both Hillary Clinton and her supporters. I wrote about that a couple of days ago.

I'm also thinking about Obama's lead in a recent poll with the white working-class. I also wonder how long Pat Buchanan will be treated like a respectable voice on politics, race, and the politics of race. Video on all that below. Perhaps I'll post about that later. And I did see the phallic symbols. And white people don't always "see" racism.

What I know I'll address is this complaint from Republicans that they can't criticize Obama and engage in regular political discussion because any criticism of Obama leads to charges of racism. That complaint is unfounded, and I will certainly take it apart later. But for now, I have another issue on my mind.

What's on my mind is the fact that slavery wasn't really abolished until 1951, when Congress finally made clear that "any form of slavery in the United States was indisputable a crime" (Douglas A Blackmon. Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II. New York: Doubleday, 2008.) The forms of slavery engaged in at the time, and by slavery I mean illegally enforced involuntary servitude, included peonage and the chain gangs. It included the illegal use of the justice system whereby a black man would be charged with some crime he either didn't commit or committed simply by virtue of being black and out in public; then he'd be charged with all kinds of fines he couldn't pay; a white man would pay the fines and have the black man as essentially a slave to work off his "debt." Then the so-called prisoners would be beaten and whipped and forced to live in condemnable conditions all the while chained. If a prisoner died, no one was charged with murder. Even if it were clearly murder.

Then there's the rape and sexual abuse of black women. White men felt access to black women's bodies was a birthright and used it frequently. With their lives being economically dependent on white men and no legal or extralegal recourse, neither the black women nor their families were in a place to fight back much. A preacher was even killed because he encouraged black women to say, "No" (ibid. 243).

Yes, the North had its issues. There were lynchings and redlining. But, there was no slavery. That's why so many African Americans left the South like children leaving school at the end of the year. The "Jim Crow" era would be better called "the age of Neoslavery." That's Blackmon's idea, but I like it.

That may not be of great concern to you. But it's something that always got to me. Before, questions about the Great Migration and the difference between the North and South would essentially end with the notion that Northern whites were equally racist as Southern whites, but on the whole, Northern racism was easier to deal with. But now, I know that Northern racism was easier to deal with because it wouldn't lead to forced labor. Of course, there remained the sexual abuse of domestic workers. But, there was no slavery.

I'll have more about Blackmon's book in the coming days. I don't know if I'll be writing a book review so much as I'll be going about my usual rants with more evidence.

Salon: Is Barack cheating on Hillary?

Here's the basic point of the essay, "Is Barack cheating on Hillary?": It's insulting to suggest that Barack Obama would be committing some crime against womanity if he selects any other woman as his running mate besides Hillary Clinton.

I agree with Catherine Price that Lanny Davis has . . . I was going to say Lanny Davis has lost his mind. Then I thought about the whole issue over seating delegates from Michigan and Florida and, well, Lanny Davis doesn't have much if any mind to lose.

Here's Lanny!:

"If anyone thinks that picking a woman will simply placate Hillary Clinton's
female supporters, I think that's very patronizing to women and I don't think
that either Governor Sebelius or Senator McCaskill would disagree."

And Allida Black isn't much better:

"Hillary Clinton is not a political Lego block, easily replaced by another
woman candidate," said Allida Black, a former Clinton national fundraising
committee member. "Women voters know this," she continued. "Hillary is not
interchangeable."

Excuse me? Wasn't part of Clinton's appeal the fact that she's a woman? Didn't I read comments that Obama wasn't different from any other presidential candidate because he's a man? Wasn't the meme that sexism is worse than racism?

So what difference does it make if Obama chooses another woman to run with besides the woman who, throughout the primary season, belittled him, played the "race card" against him, emasculated him, and distorted the truth? See, what some Clinton supporters forget is that the reason young women, in particular, abandoned her is because she's was acting like every other president, that is, a man.

Sorry, Obama

I pretty much gotta side with Ludacris on this one!

The Clintons are Wrong

As best as I can, I will list their complaints about the primary elections. For every complaint, I will elucidate the truth.

1. The media has been bias against Clinton.

Not true.
"In fact, when it came to character, the tone of the reporting was about the same, with both candidates receiving about twice as much positive press as negative between Jan. 1 and Mar. 9.
“The trajectory of the coverage, however, began to turn against Obama, and did so well before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright,” the authors of the study wrote. “Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical — and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself.”"

Here's the study itself.

2. Sexism has played a large part in Clinton's failure to clinch the nomination. Racism hasn't been much of a factor, if at all.

Not true.
"In most states, Clinton received roughly half the male vote: about what you'd expect in any primary where you have two candidates whose policies are so similar, and where the ideological differences between them are so small. And in almost every state, Clinton won more than half of the white male vote, often much more."

3. Sexism is worse in society; racism has largely been eradicated.

Not true.
"In 2007, the Level Playing Field Institute conducted a rigorous study of 19,000 professionals and managers to determine who leaves corporate America and why. When the data were broken down, race, not gender, became the defining demographic. People of color are more than three times as likely to leave solely due to unfairness (9.5%) than Caucasian heterosexual men (3.0%). In comparison, Caucasian women are only one-and-a-half times more likely to leave (4.6%)."

4. Michigan and Florida are civil rights issues.

Not true.
NHPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

Clinton initially supported stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates. Even Harold Ickes said, "This committee feels very strongly that the rules ought to be enforced." Clinton's campaign sent out a memo which stated, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar." And she opposed revotes until it became politically advantageous to be a "champion" of the people.

Moreover. Had Florida and Michigan conducted their primaries the way the other 48 states conducted their own primaries and caucuses -- that is, in accord with the very clear calendar laid down by the DNC well before the primaries began -- then Clinton's marchers would be utterly justified in their claims. But when the two states flouted those rules by moving their primaries outside the prescribed time frame, the DNC, which gave neither state a waiver to do so, decreed that their primaries would not count and enjoined all presidential candidates from campaigning in those states.

And, despite the high turn-out, many, many more voters didn't vote because they believed the DNC and the candidates when told the primaries wouldn't count.

And to top if off, Clinton's solution to Michigan is essentially racist and denies the votes of black Michiganders. About 25% of Michigan’s Democratic voters are Black — and about 70% of those voters chose to vote for “uncommitted.” In effect, the candidate preferred by white voters is given two bites; the candidate preferred by Black voters is given only one bite. In effect, Black votes in Michigan are worth less than white votes in Michigan.

So, much of Clinton's arguments are either specious or are right false. The notion that not seating Florida and Michigan in full will hurt is specious as well. There are tons of new Democratic voters. Most voters understand that the fight over Michigan and Florida delegates is not the civil rights movement of 2008. Moreover, a general election campaign hasn't been run yet. Once voters know the policy differences between Obama and McCain, how Michigan and Florida turn out won't be much of an issue.

My Problem with Big Mouth and Big Mouthed Lies

Let me explain the problem with her statements and lack of apology to the Obama family.

First, she said the word "assassination." That's the problem. She said the word "assassination." Regardless of what she meant or what she may really be thinking, you can't say "assassination" during a campaign with the first viable black candidate.

Now, her whole timeline argument is bogus. Bill knew in March after one month of primaries that he pretty much had it locked. It just took till the California primary in June for him to get the technical requisite number. Robert F Kennedy, Sr only campaigned a month before he was . . . killed. So, the whole argument is dishonest. Either she's lying, or she's just plain dumb.

I don't buy this whole argument that it's the Obama campaign's fault that her were so insidious. The Clintons are whining that the Obama campaign sent out memos highlighting what she said and adding their spin. And they're whining about it like she didn't make the most of Rev. Wright and Obama's "bitter" comments. Like Howard Wolfson wasn't on 2 or 3 conference calls a day going bananas.

Here's why she should apologize to the Obamas. Her words sound as though she's waiting for him to be assassinated so she can win the nomination. Is she too dumb to see that, or too arrogant to acknowledge it? What's more, her lack of apology is going to cost her even more with the black community, especially in NYC. It would have been easy and admirable for her to say that she understands her words could be misconstrued, but she "honestly, honestly didn't mean it the way it sounded" and she apologizes for the misunderstanding. That would've ended the discussion. Instead, her campaign goes into hyper-indignation mode and keeps the story going fairly well themselves without any help from the Obama campaign.

And no one's been pushing Clinton out of the campaign. She hasn't been "disrespected." Michael Dukakis was out polling GHW Bush in 1988. We see how well that worked out for the Democrats. With the exception of Johnathan Alter and Keith Olbermann, most the media is thrilled with the prospects of a divided convention. People did tell Ted Kennedy to drop out in 1980. He didn't. He split the party. Carter lost. No one had to tell Gary Hart or Jerry Brown to drop out in 1992 because it was quite clear that Clinton was going to be the nominee and neither of them had a chance. So let me be clear. The Clintons are lying to you.

And sexism has not been the downfall of her campaign. She lost 11 primaries and caucuses in a row because she didn't have a post Super Tuesday (the one of February the 5th) plan, not because of sexism. Her fight for Michigan and Florida are exaggerated and embarrassing. Especially seeing as how she agreed they "wouldn't count." This isn't to say that sexism doesn't exist and didn't come up the campaign, it's only to say that it's not why she has lost it, both the campaign and her bearings. Moreover, despite her supporters offering Obama one of her 3 testicles (like that's not sexist to both Obama and Clinton), Obama never played gender against her despite her playing race against him. I know lots of white Americans and their enablers-of-color swear her campaign hasn't race baited, but as I laid out in my May 18 post on race relations, white people can't be depended up to accurately detect, much less admit, racism.

And let me put a finer point on this. Many Democratic women and men, like Geraldine Ferrarro, are threatening to vote for McCain, or not at all, in retaliation proportedly for the DNC's failure to speak out against sexism coming from the media. Not that any sexism came from the Obama campaign on the DNC itself. But, in retaliation their going to vote for McCain. McCain who, by the way, failed to correct a woman who, during a small group campaign stop, asked him, "How're we going to stop the bitch?" McCain who has historically stood against women's reproductive rights, recently against equal pay, and promised to add more Scalias and Alitos to the court. Yeah, they're going to support him because Obama and the DNC were sufficiently anti-sexist.

Now, maybe Jesse Jackson Jr shouldn't have made the Katrina comments after Clinton misty moment in New Hampshire, where, by the way, she said, "Some of us are ready. And some of us are not." Even in her most human moment, she can take a nasty swipe at Obama. JJ, Jr's point was essentially that he didn't buy her tears. I didn't either. But other than that, there's no way that the Obama campaign played the race card against her.

Now, if you look through my earlier posts, you'll see I was originally okay with the prospects of Obama and Clinton being in the White House together, whoever was president and vice president. I know longer feel that way. I don't even want Clinton on the ticket.

Let me qualify this by saying the Obama campaign didn't have me right this post and probably won't read this post. But I sure feel better getting all that off my chest!

(- I will link other assertions at a later date.)

Update: Four Year Wait

I'm not alone in my analysis of the situation. This post presumes that Barack Obama does win the nomination, and that the Clinton campaign only wants to make it impossible for him to win in November so she can run in 2012.

The point made is that she won't have African American support then, either.

Top House Democrat denounces Clinton campaign tactics

Posted by: Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON - “Scurrilous” and “disingenuous” were among the words a top Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives used on Thursday to describe Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics in her bid to defeat Barack Obama for their party’s presidential nomination.

House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina and the highest ranking black in Congress, also said he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.

“I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win” in November, Clyburn told Reuters in an interview.

Obama holds a sizable lead in delegates won in state-nominating contests which could be hard for her to overcome.

The purported theory is that an Obama defeat in November against Republican presidential candidate John McCain would let Clinton make another presidential bid in four years, Clyburn said.

Clyburn has not yet declared whether he supports Clinton or Obama. But in January, he raised his concerns about the heated exchanges between the two campaigns before the South Carolina primary.

On Thursday, Clyburn took Clinton and surrogates to task, complaining that they want the popular votes in Michigan and Florida counted, even though both states violated party rules for the early scheduling of their nominating contests.

“I think it’s so disingenuous … (adviser James) Carville and Sen. Clinton were all on TV. I’ve seen them two or three times this week, talking about counting Florida and Michigan.”

Obama did not campaign in those states because the Democratic Party said Florida and Michigan wouldn’t be included in the formal tally for the nomination. “Her name was the only one on the ticket in Michigan and still 42, 43 percent of the vote was against her,” Clyburn said.

Still, Clyburn said “I don’t think she ought to drop out.”

But he added, “There’s a difference between dropping out and raising all this extraneous scurrilous stuff about the guy (Obama). Just run your campaign … you don’t have to drop out to be respectful of other people.”

Four Year Wait? (Updated)

I guess should preface this by saying I was watching MSNBC when a viewer asked why Barack Obama's failure to win the white blue-collar voting bloc was seen as a bigger problem than Hillary Clinton's failure to win the African American voting bloc. What Joe Scarborough explained is that African Americans are the most loyal Democratic voters; that Clinton isn't really worried about losing African American voters to John McCain in November. Of course, Rachel Maddow had to point out that since 1964, no Democrat, including Bill Clinton, had won a majority of white male voters; that it shouldn't be a big deal that Obama can't secure the white male vote during the Democratic primary.

So. Hillary Clinton seems to presume that the African American vote is guaranteed even if she's viewed as having stolen the nomination from Obama, the first viable black candidate. I think African Americans should prove her wrong. No, I'm not suggesting that we vote for McCain. I didn't just drink a large glass of stupid. What I suggest is that we African Americans, and any other voters of conscience, either vote for Cynthia McKinney, the former Georgia congresswoman who is the frontrunner for the Green Party presidential nominee; or, vote for Ralph Nader, even though I think he's a bit cloudy; or, not at all.

Yeah, I said it. Essentially, I'm advocating that African Americans essentially phone it in in November. We've gone through far worse than what four years of John McCain might offer. So, yeah, let's forget this election. I'm loathe the campaign the Clintons' have been running. I loathe whatever plans John McCain might have, which I already know includes ending any and all legal affirmative action (And let me point out, few white workers or students are displaced by affirmative action; and, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women.)

But I'm really disturbed by the notion that African American votes can be taken so lightly. I'm disturbed by the notion that in the name of breaking the hardest, highest glass ceiling women face, the first viable black presidential candidate can be tossed under the bus. I strongly reject some of the reasons he'd make a "bad" president, most of which is, at least partially, racist.

• "He's all fluff." Interpretation: Black people are great speakers, but they never actually do anything about the problem the speech is on.
• "He's a snake oil salesman." Interpretation: Black people are very sly and cunning, and always looking for the next mark for their next con.
• "All he has are speeches." 1st Interpretation: All black can do is talk. They're to lazy to do anything else and aren't bright enough to know what else to do. 2nd Interpretation: All he has is speeches. That's make him unqualified. Don't make him the Affirmative Action president.
• Etc and so on.

Those and others hearken back to racist notions that supposedly explain black inferiority. The Clinton campaign has been playing the race card. And when others play the race card against Obama, even though some Republicans come to his defense, the Clintons use the "controversy" against him. I mean, the only argument Hillary Clinton is making is basically that Obama's all fluff, and unvetted fluff at that.

So what she feels she'd make the better president? George W Bush thought he'd make a better president than Al Gore and John Kerry. And so what there're some who haven't voted yet? Those same voters hadn't voted in elections before.

And what's their major policy differences? The fact that he doesn't have a health coverage mandate? Or, the fact that he's not proposing a Middle East umbrella under which any country that promised not to acquire nuclear weapons would be protected by the US military industrial complex should Iran attack them. Yeah, forget the fact that the most recent NIE said the Iranians weren't trying to build nuclear weapons. Forget the fact that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the "crazy" leader we must guard against, doesn't even have control over the military, and the Supreme Ayatollah has acknowledged that attacking Israel or any US ally isn't worth the risk. Yeah, ignore all that. Just like she ignored the NIE before the Iraq resolution. I mean, she's arguing that she'll be best to handle an emergency, but she keeps making these awful decisions under specious reasoning, and is now threatening to nuke Iran if they attack one of "umbrella" allies. I'm not alone in thinking threatening Iran with nukes as a bad idea.

Had she dropped out earlier, she would've made an absolutely incredible vice presidential candidate, and an unbeatable ticket. With his "speeches" and inspiration, Obama would've changed the political landscape and gotten some good policies passed. With her as vice president and his willingness to listen, they would've gotten very strong legislation passed. His presidency will show that the country is actually left of center. Americans actually care about each other and aren't going to cede our country to the wealthiest 1% and multinational corporations. And if she were the vice president those eight years, the country would be ready for her more wonkish style in 2016. She would've walked right through the elections. I guess she didn't want to wait that long. So, she's willing to undo Obama, and if she doesn't win the presidency this year, she can try again in 2012.

So really, why is she continuing her candidacy. The only way she can win, and "win," is that Obama implodes, and it doesn't appear that they may happen; or, that she blows him up. If she's willing to destroy his candidacy to benefit her own, then yes, I say African Americans should not vote for her. Other voters of principle are invited to join us.

Thank Goodness for Senate Republicans!

You know I don't mean that! I'm already, er, not happy about the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary. Now, she has sufficient reason to keep dragging Sen. Barack Obama and herself and the party through the mud. That's just great! (And if she succeeds in taking the nomination from Obama, I think all African-Americans should consider sitting this election out. More about that come June.)

But now, the Republicans, in their fervent commitment to the bottom, er, line, have blocked a bill that would reset the time employees have to sue employers for pay discrimination to 6 months after the most recent pay check. So essentially, the statute of limitations resets every time the employee gets paid. The intent of this bill was to undercut the recent Supreme Court 5-4 decision that the time limit starts when the decision is made to discriminate in pay. If you're confused by the decision, don't worry. You're bright. If, on the other hand, the decision makes complete sense to you, then you should probably worry.

The Republicans blocked the bill, which had passed the House of Representatives, because they felt it was unfair to employers. The White House agrees - Bush threatened to veto the bill if it passed. Their concern is that an employer may be sued years passed the "decision" and that evidence might be lost. Plus, they are outraged by the Democrats having held the bill till after dinner just so Sens. Clinton and Obama would have the chance to support it. Sen. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, didn't go back to vote on the bill, but he's against it.

I'm going to contact both my US senators - Republicans each. It's probably useless, but I want my disdain for this obstructionism recorded.

Say What?

Sorry to be so late with this, but:

One-fifth of white Ohio voters said race was an important issue to their vote, and those who did voted three in four for Clinton. That compares with the one in five Democrats in Ohio who said gender was important to their vote, and they voted six in 10 for Clinton.

That essentially means that 16% of the Democratic voters in Ohio are racist. Yes, I used the "R" word.

When I first had this exit poll Tuesday night, I thought Nora O'Donell had misspoken. Sadly, I was wrong.

Breaking News: Clinton Downplayed Her NAFTA Criticism

Okay. I've been trying to 'vet' this story for the past little bit, but I'm not getting all the info I want. All I'm getting is that Hillary Clinton's campaign told Canada's government to take her comments regarding renegotiating NAFTA with a grain of salt. Some reports say that both Clinton and Barack Obama reassured the Canadian government. A few recent reports say it was Clinton's campaign who contacted the Canadian government, not the Obama campaign. Plus, the opposition party in Canada is alleging that Prime Minister Stephen Harper, or at least an aide, wanted the story leaked to try to knock Obama from the elections.

And do we need to get into Clinton's apparent preference for John McCain over Obama? "Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002," a derisive Clinton said yesterday to the retired military officers at the Westin in Dupont Circle."

Or, comparing Obama to Ken Star?

UPDATE: Here's a blog from The Huffington Post on the issue. In it, Paul Loeb reports that it was Clinton, not Obama, who reassured the Canadian government.

UPDATE #2: Clinton did not reassure the Canadian government, either.

My Hope for Obama Has Not Dampened

It’s been several weeks since I last blogged. It’s not that I haven’t had any thoughts about some of the world’s current events; it’s that my physical condition (CFIDS) hit a down period. I’m not sure if I’m back on an upswing, let’s hope so, but I think I can find a way to keep blogging every so often. Or at least, more often than every 6 weeks. And yeah, I know I don’t have a (large) audience, but I wanna do my part to advance true democracy and the struggle for justice, and join brothers and sisters is racial solidarity. And before a European American or a Latino brother or sister denounce my obvious endorsement of black political solidarity; black solidarity doesn’t preclude aligning with progressives of other races to achieve equality (having just finished We Who Are Dark, by Tommie Shelby).

So, in the wake of 1- 4 March 4th for Senator Obama, let me restate and explain my support and answer to some questions I’ve seen raised.

First, get over this notion that African Americans are only voting for Obama because he’s black. Remember, initially, Hillary Clinton had an overwhelming majority of black support in the polls. Obama has black support not only because of his color and the tremendous good it could do for our community and country, but because he’s more progressive than Clinton; he rejected the occupation from the beginning – I’m not upset with his funding the war because the troops were going to be over there and they need the funding, though the waste of thievery of private companies is criminal; he runs a campaign based on the issues; he doesn’t triangulate his political policies; and most importantly, he doesn’t play ‘divide and conquer’ with the electorate. I’m personally rejecting Clinton primary campaign because I don’t like how she’s run this campaign. And I’ll add, Bill Clinton is not black, he’s white, and Toni Morrison’s point had nothing to do with ethnocultural identification.

Second, enough with the question of who has it worse – blacks or women? Not only is it clear that black men have it worse; not only does this question ignore black women; worst, it puts two groups who should be working together against one another. And for the purposes of this campaign, the question doesn’t have to be who has it worse; it can be who can make things better. In my opinion, the candidate who hasn’t been playing on divisions is better position to make things better for everyone. And let me respond those who argue if Obama were a woman, with his record, there’s no way he’d be a serious candidate. Assuming you mean black woman, of course he wouldn’t be where he is. If you mean white woman, well . . . Clinton’s considered a serious candidate and the only difference the two have in experience is age. And may I ask how do we imagine the campaign going if it were Barack Obama vs. Diane Rodham?

Now, I really don’t like the way Clinton’s been campaigning. I don’t like that she does attack Obama. And I don’t mean the whole ‘pointing out differences’ thing. I’m okay with that. What I don’t like is distorting and lying about your opponent’s record. Even Dan Abrams, who is constantly ranting about the alleged anti-Hillary traditional media bias, constantly gives her more demerits than the demerits he has to imagine to give Obama.

I really like the way Obama’s run his campaign. It really is from the bottom-up. It really is a campaign of the people. Moreover, point by point, Obama talks about policy specifics as much as Clinton. And that’s one thing I discredit about Clinton’s campaign. I mean, I understand you want voters to act on the basis of how you paint your opponent; but, how can you feel good about wins based on the distortion of your opponent? Obama is more than just “speeches.” I repeat I know that’s standard fare, but that’s what folks don’t like about standard politics. Clinton keeps saying ‘this is your campaign,’ but that’s not true. Her campaign is run top-down. I know some argue that you can’t be sure of what you’ll get from Obama. I respond that we do know that he’s opened and awakened latent progressive activists. We’ll be able to affect his policy as president. I know some are afraid that those who’re active now will go back to sleep after Nov 4 Election Day, but I don’t think we will. Most of those who’ve come alive have been waiting for such a moment as this. We’ve been waiting for a president who acknowledges our importance and promises to listen to our voice. We all realize the “urgency” of this moment and have no intentions of seeing it lost to us. I know not everyone can join a “movement” as some have to “work the night shift,” but I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.

Now, let me make clear my concern with the campaign continuing on. I think Obama will do well and eventually lock up the nomination. And I’m sure even if the contest goes through June, the candidates themselves will be friends again. What I don’t like is what I see from the two groups of supporters. Admittedly, I especially detest the arrogant attitude and condescending comments coming from Clinton supporters to Obama supporters. We’re called Obamabots and deluded. And while there are those who argue Obama supporters are just as bad, I haven’t seen it. I have seen nasty comments from Obama supporters, but they’re mostly based on whatever idiotic comment some Clinton supporter has made, not on someone’s support for Clinton per se. And what’s gonna make it hard for Obama supporters to have to face a ticket with Clinton in November – by that I’m referring to those who’ll still vote and not sit out November – is that we’d have to vote for a person who’s called us deluded, suggested we’ve been fooled, who dismissed the black vote, who’s played blacks against whites, and blacks against (white) women. I’m not looking forward to that. I’d just hate a John McCain presidency even worse!

Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure Clinton will get things done. The problem is that I’m also sure she’ll get things done by resorting to politics as usual, pissing off half the electorate, and leaving conservatives demanding “change” by 2012. Obama will get things done, but he’ll do it by changing the frames of public debate. With an Obama presidency, conservatives won’t be able to talk about the abuses of “liberalism.” Instead of a Democrat having to move to the right in 2012, the Republicans’ll have to move to the left because the debate will have changed.

And now for my last thought: If Clinton and her supporters have such a problem with Obama’s words and speeches, STOP STEALING THEM!!

Breaking News: Dennis Kucinich Not Allowed to Debate!

According to NBC (I'm currently watching Keith Olbermann), the Nevada Supreme Court found in favor of NBC. The debate will only have Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton. Dennis Kucinich will not be a participant. Read more here.

MLK's Birthday

I think this is important to share, especially for the next week. There's a lawsuit arising from the Nevada caucuses that look none too just or "equal." Alternet.org has an article about it. I first heard about it on Hardball with Chris Matthews and the video is below. Sad on MLK's birthday.

In other news, the Clinton and Obama campaigns have called a truce, which is good. And I disagree with Rep. Charles Rangel on the recent issue of race in the campaign. Though, I love his tax reform package! (Update: Rep. Rangel has apologized for his comments about Barack Obama. As soon as I can find more information, I'll post it.)

Ronald Reagan RIP! and One Other Thing

I plan on writing a more substantive post tomorrow, but right now while I'm watching Jon Stewart show clips of the recent Republican debates, I wonder . . . do Republicans not know or not care how little African Americans think of Reagan? Why do they keep touting themselves as Reagan Reincarnate?

Yeah, that's how you attract minority voters away from the Democrats.

Note to people who do care, here's why just about 85-90% of African Americans support the Democrats: even when they say something racially insensitive, which it seems even the most well-meaning white Americans do, Dems don't hold up an enemy of the Civil Rights Movement as some sort of icon.

Here's some readings from Tim Wise and Bob Herbert for ya.

May the Gipper rest in peace. Please, Republicans, let him rest.

And while I'm at it, let me take a moment to explain why any white person needs to be very careful and accurate when describing the relationship between MLK's dream (may the dream live on) and LBJ's signing the civil rights acts. America has a hateful habit of either dismissing or disempowers African Americans' historical achievements and efforts. For example, my history teacher told us slavery wasn't all that bad; after all, there weren't a whole lot of rebellions. He didn't mention that the geography and demographics of the South didn't lend themselves to rebellions, and there were a few, not to mention the Underground Railroad. He didn't mention the numerous rebellions on Jamaica or how Haiti's independence affected the peculiar institution.

Then, he credited Abe Lincoln and several white abolitionists for setting the slaves free. Although, according to him, the Civil War was not about slavery and to suggest otherwise was historical revisionism. We talked about Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and Frederick Douglass, of course. Nat Turner was mentioned but made to sound evil for having killed "innocent" white women and children.

And that's just about slavery.

Now, to be sure, MLK's dream would not have come true had LBJ not signed the legislation. However, that's only half the story. JFK's (I'm loving these initials!) death kinda pressured him into it. Having the world watch Southerners brutalized innocent Americans, however darker complected, pressured him into. PostWWII, the world saw America as extremely hypocritical for fighting for "freedom and the spread of democracy" while allowing virtual apartheid in the South. That also forced LBJ's hand. So to give the impression, even if mistakenly, that MLK dreamed, but LBJ acted, not only continues the racist habit of disempowering Black activism, it also minimizes the roll of one of the only two African Americans who seem to get credit for anything Civil Rights related - MLK and Rosa Parks.

Yeah, African Americans were going to jump all over that, Bob Johnson notwithstanding. It's not because we're overly sensitive; it's because we're sick of being written out of history!!

Now, I dare not say the Clintons are racist. I'm not sure one way or the other anymore. And before you try to run down their list good deeds towards the Black community, let me remind you that not even Abe Lincoln thought the Negroes deserved full equality. So, I'm not sure. But if Hillary Clinton really wants to get out of this, during the next debate, which may not be tomorrow if Dennis Kucinich isn't included (way to go, Kucinich!), she needs to stress that LBJ and MLK needed each other. . . . Or, on the other hand, Barack Obama, why don't you stress that symbiosis?

Here's Hillary and btw, "Yes, We Can!"

The New Hampshire Democratic primary election has been called for Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama has come in a close second. John Edwards came in third.

I have to be honest: I am a little disappointed. Obama is still "fired up and ready to go!" But I'm disappointed.

That having been said, congratulations Hillary Clinton. Her win is good for the nation. The pundits had said Obama would win by a landslide, and he did do better than expected a couple of weeks ago, and that after South Carolina, it would be over. I think this is good because two states, whose demographics in no way represent the nation, should decide either candidate. That's basically it. Oh, and I hope Clinton will stop attacking Obama. Like I said, I'd vote for Clinton in the general, but the attacks against Obama turned me off. Truth be told, I'd really like a Obama/Clinton ticket, but the acrimony is making that seem less likely. While I find Clinton a tad too far to the right for my personal tastes, I also think she probably has the connections to effect change.

On the other hand, I think she has too many connections to effect as much change as needed if she's pushing her own agenda and not someone else's.

And, I don't like the notion that Obama and Edwards are engaged in wishful thinking.

But, Clinton's emotional moment tugged at my heart. The cheap shot against Obama undid some of the heart-tugging, though.

Again, Clinton's win is good for the country and the party. The discussion will and should continue. I hope Barack Obama wins and still believe he has a marvelous shot, but the conversation shouldn't begin and end in Iowa and New Hampshire. That's just silly. Not only are the states not demographically representative of the nation, they're only 2 of 50 states. Plus, this means Clinton will campaign in South Carolina, and I was going to be pissed if she didn't. If she didn't (or doesn't, but she better), she'd be telling African Americans, "I can win without you!" Which . . . okay, it's true. She could. Bush only got around 10% of the Black vote in both 2000 and 2004 (So citizens of the world don't blame him on us). But I'd still be p-i-issed.

So anyway, the conversation continues . . . but this is NOT a historical upset, Tim Russert.

Update: Hillary's emotional display probably did help her. But that's a bit because on Keith Olbermann showed the entire clip.