The Political Party What Keeps Crying "Voter Fraud"

UPDATE II:Free Times has confirmed that the six names examined by the State Election Commission came from the list SLED is investigating.

Yeah, that's the 2nd update. Can you imagine the first update and the original story? It all boils down to this: despite all evidence to the contrary, Republicans insist on crying voter fraud in order justify voter suppression. That's all it is and will ever be.

And while we're at it, let's scrap this whole "save taxpayers' money" meme, too. After all, the US DoJ used Provision 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to block the law, and fighting the DoJ on this issue, especially since SC is hiring a private attorney at $520 an hour, is estimated to cost $1million.

And to add insult to injury, SC Gov. Nikki Haley (R) is raising the banner of "10th Amendment rights"! What the what?! Just in case you didn't know, this is why minorities, especially black folks, don't hop on the whole "states' rights" and "local government" bandwagon.

My Condolenses and My Time

First, my condolenses to the Obama and Dunham families as Barack's grandmother has died of cancer.

Second, I'm making calls for the Obama campaign. If you would like to join, and you should, click below:

Obama's Closing Argument

These Are My Confessions

Updated - I changed "white atheist" to "Republican Christian" and "black Muslim" to "Democrat Muslim."
. . . with apologies, of course, to Usher Raymond.

There are a few. Like, I should actually be in bed now if not asleep. I have a head cold on top of the usual CFIDS, and I have to get up in the morning to be sure to make it to Wednesday morning Bible study, in part because I love Bible study at my church, but mostly because I gave my word to my pastor. And I want him to know my word is bond.

Here's another one. There's a guy a like who I might run off because I'm afraid I'll run him off because I haven't been in an adult relationship ever. If you actually saw me, you'd think that were impossible. But if you actually knew me, you'd see how that could happen. And my mom and brother think it's funny that he wants to own a . . . spa. That doesn't sound as bad as the word originally used that my family thinks is funny. And I'm not even sure how he feels about me yet, or for that matter, how I really feel about him. (Though, I do want to change my relationship status on my networking sites.)

But here's my real confession. I'm a Christian. Yes, yes. With my support for contraception and even "abortion on demand" (I'm not telling anyone to have a kid I have no intentions of helping her raise.); and my support of gay rights and even same-sex marriage - or something legally equal to it; and my belief in evolution, or at least some form, I. am. a. Christian.

Born and raised in a Baptist church. My grandfather baptized me. Oh, don't worry God-haters, I've gone to college. I've had my doubts. I have none presently, but on occasion I do, and something unexplainable just won't let me go.

I've heard all my life how important it is to vote for someone who's Christian who shares my Christian values. Now, being that I'm black, that has usually meant concern for racial and economic justice, truth and honest in politics, so forth and so on, but not necessarily, if at all, anti-abortion and gay rights. Black folks have enough on our minds before we start actually considering voting on personal issues like that. You lucky white person you.

You know how the best response to accusations that Obama is a Muslim is to say, "First of all, he's not. Second of all, so what if he were?" Well, honestly, I do have a mild problem if he were. That's my confession. I'd have a much easier time voting for a Republican Christian than a Democrat Muslim.

That's not to say I wouldn't vote for that black Muslim or any Muslim. And, I guess, here's my basic point, there are some things some of us Americans are dealing with that are so deep and unconscious that they don't come up without prodding. Racism, for example. Granted, doesn't take much prodding, but you get my point.

Here's the thing. Whatever you were taught as a child, that's over. You can't keep blaming your parents or even society for your willful ignorance and prejudice. Just like I can't blame my upbringing for the anxiety I feel voting for a random Muslim or in this fledgling relationship.

I'm an adult. I'm my own person. I make my own choices and decisions, good or bad, which accounts for why I'm still up long after I should actually be in bed . . . if not asleep. And if there's something inside of you that won't let you vote for a colored/negro/black/African-American, you have to make a decision to vote based on principles, policy, etc and not race. And. You can do it. You mush. Otherwise, and here's where I can release some pent-up cynicism, you're a racist.

So, that's my little piece of sincerity today.

Wanda Sykes Cracks Me Up!!

I plan to starting discussing some foreign issues soon. American politics has come to depress me. I find it quite distressing that McCain/Palin with their lies and terrible policies might actually win.

Not that I won't mention the election at all or talk about race anymore. Just that I want to broaden my horizon. What I've found by chatting with people online from all over the world is that the issues confronting everyone are just about the same - everywhere there is racism, sexism, greed and capitalism. And, of course, everybody is suffering from poor decisions of George W Bush; and, to be quite honest, American hegemony overall. So yes, I will deal with the issues while including an international flavor. Yes, that means I'll have to start reading more articles about foreign affairs and what's going on in other countries. But that's fine. I look to learn as much as my brain can hold.

But until then . . . Wanda Sykes is hilarious!

Change the Debate

Change the Debate:
How Gaffes, Games, & Gotchas Dominated the 2008 Presidential Primary Debates

We all saw the raggedy primary debates. Especially that atrocity committed by ABC. SNL tried to make the debates watchable, and of course, millions of people watched them, but did they really address the matters you care about?

I've made peace with the fact that right folks just ain't gonna talk honestly about race during this debate. So, it's okay if racial injustice isn't mention or Obama was to walk the fine line all us "colored" folks know about. But, I mean seriously, can we talk about some real issues?

Read the report. Sign the petition.

Must Read: Mississippi's Ballot Trick

Be sure to read this. This is about voters' and democracy. And no one's questioning the intelligence of Mississippi's voter, we're questioning the legality of Mississippi's governmor and secretary of state.

I 'clare, if it weren't for the date of the editorial, I think it's 1968. ~ No1KState
September 11, 2008

Editorial

Mississippi’s Ballot Trick

Mississippi’s governor, Haley Barbour, and its secretary of state have come up with a particularly cynical dirty trick for the November election. Let’s call it: “Where’s the Senate race?”

Defying state law, they have decided to hide a hard-fought race for the United States Senate at the bottom of the ballot, where they clearly are hoping some voters will overlook it. Their proposed design is not only illegal. It shows a deep contempt for Mississippi’s voters.

Republicans have long had a lock on the state’s two Senate seats. But this year, former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, a Democrat, has been running close to Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican, in the polls. Mr. Wicker was appointed to the seat by Governor Barbour in late December after Trent Lott stepped down.

Mississippi election law clearly states that federal elections must go at the top of ballots. And the secretary of state, Delbert Hosemann, plans to list the state’s other Senate race — incumbent Thad Cochran is running far ahead of his Democratic challenger, Erik Fleming — where it belongs, right below the presidential contest.

But Mr. Hosemann argues that because the Wicker-Musgrove race is a special election to fill the remainder of Mr. Lott’s term, he is free to place it at the bottom, below state and county races.

Mr. Hosemann is insisting on that placement even after the state attorney general’s office notified him that his ballot design violates state law.

Mr. Hosemann’s ballot also violates the Voting Rights Act, which requires that changes in election procedures that could make it harder for people to vote — and this certainly fits that bill — be cleared in advance with the Justice Department.

This is not a dispute over aesthetics. Mr. Hosemann’s decision could easily change the outcome of the Wicker-Musgrove election.

Some voters, including the elderly, the least educated and first-time voters, have more trouble than others navigating complicated ballots. Many of these voters are more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans. And, yes, Governor Barbour and Mr. Hosemann are both Republicans.

A local election official is suing to put the Wicker-Musgrove race back where it belongs. The state court judge who is hearing the case on Thursday should order that the Senate race be placed at the top of the ballot. Even if she does the right thing, we fear, that will not end the matter.

The case is likely to wind up, on appeal, in Mississippi’s Supreme Court. Voting rights advocates are worried that the Republican-leaning court will decide the case on partisan lines, rather than on the law.

If the state courts do not provide relief, supporters of fair elections should take the case to federal court. They will need to move quickly since time to prepare ballots is fast running out. Mississippi’s voters have a right to a ballot that conforms with the law — and that is not designed to win a Senate seat by trickery.

Kindergarten Sex

Yes, I'm still tired of politics. But this is egregious.

McCain/Palin are now accusing Obama of wanting to teach 5 and 6 year olds about sex before they even learn their letters.

Well, guess what. I had sex ed when I was a kindergarten, and I can wrap up that days lesson in about a paragraph.

"No one gets to touch you unless you say it's okay. And any part if your body that covered by underclothing, no one at all except your parents or someone your parents tell you is safe should touch you there. And even if your parent touch you there, if it feels uncomfortable, tell a grown up. You can tell me." "Me" was Mrs. Dorsey, my kindergarten teacher.

So, just be advised, if you vote for McCain/Palin, you're voting to leave your children vulnerable to sexual molestation. Just so you know.

This Is Why Black Folks Don't Vote for Republicans

courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentarydavis0831.artaug31,0,3487488.story

Courant.com
No Room At The Table For Black Republicans
By YVONNE R. DAVIS

August 31, 2008

With stiff upper lips and phony grins, black Republicans are going to the Republican National Convention in Minnesota to be dissed by the party. Many will make believe they are down for Sen. John McCain — too afraid to come out the closet for Obama.

Since the 2000 and 2004 Republican conventions, a lot has changed for African American Republicans. I was a vice chairwoman for Bush in Connecticut, a national co-chairwoman for African Americans for Bush, a surrogate spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee and worked on Latino outreach efforts nationwide. With a number of blacks, I served on various committees to plan events at the Philadelphia and Big Apple conventions. There were rainbow coalitions of interns and delegates. Featured speakers such as Colin Powell, J.C. Watts Jr., Condolezza Rice, black actors and ministers and gospel singers played a role on prime-time television.

Black Republicans had a voice, working in key positions participating in everything from building the Republican Party platform to prayer breakfasts, hosting events and most important, being heard on issues vital to us. George W. Bush was a "new kind of Republican." He desired to show we were a part of the party of Lincoln. But oh, how times have changed.

I've gone from having VIP seats sitting in the Bush family box to having a premier seat on my living room couch in Windsor from which to watch the Republican convention. I will miss the hurrahs, shout-outs, fist pumps and holding up the signs. I will miss talking to the president, his family and so many people who were interested in what was important to African Americans. Real or perceived, there was an effort to engage us.

The 2008 convention has only one African American speaking — a man I personally know and admire, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. He is also the chief black for McCain. However, will he be seen by all on prime-time television?

Black Republican pundits at the convention have tremendous pressure to make negative remarks about Obama — there are well-scripted key message points to keep them in line. One group called the National Black Republican Association purchased 50 billboard ads in Denver to taunt that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican and that Obama is no MLK. In a three-minute video, MLK's niece Alveda King, a Republican, supports this claim. I'm not sure what time she is living in, but in the video she refers to us as Negroes.

To use the King legacy to divide and conquer is a useless tactic to prove one is not "monolithic." It's typical "crabs in a barrel" against Obama. It may be believed that acceptance brownie points will be garnered from white Republicans.

Black Republicans faking to feel included should ask why African American Republican Dr. Deborah Honeycutt, a highly educated, beautiful and successful physician running for the U.S. House in Georgia's 13th Congressional District, can't get support from the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee or the Georgia State Republican Party. Since 2007, according to the Federal Elections Commission, she has raised over $5 millionto try to defeat her white Democratic opponent, incumbent Rep. David Albert Scott. To date, he raised nearly $700,000.

I asked Honeycutt's campaign manager, Michael Murphy,if John McCain has reached out to her or whether anyone of significance from Washington or Georgia is offering help.

He hesitated and gave an embarrassing "No." I then asked him why and he said, "Well ... I don't know. Perhaps when she goes to the convention they will change their minds once they see her."

While I strongly support Barack Obama, there are still so many values in the Republican Party I hold dear. John McCain's website now has a listing for African Americans along with a number of other minority groups, but the truth is that the outreach is only implied.

The 2008 Republican convention and the presidential election should be a wake-up call for black Republicans. In the end, if we choose to support Obama, we should not do it in the dark.

If we choose to support McCain, then we must get the courage to challenge a party that we have allowed to act as if we don't exist.

Yvonne R. Davis of Windsor is a former appointee of President George W. Bush.

Copyright © 2008, The Hartford Courant

Voter Suppression in Mississippi

Still At It
Posted by dday
Hullabaloo
August 22, 2008.
http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/
This time, in Mississippi.

We often chronicle the voter suppression and
intimidation machinations from the right. There's also
the use of US Attorneys to investigate Democrats at
fortunate times for their Republican opponents. Despite
the high-profile nature of the Don Siegelman case and
others, this element of the Republican machine hasn't
been shut down. In fact, it's in full force in a Senate
race in Mississippi.

As federal courtwatchers wonder if the Mississippi Beef
Plant investigation will entangle Senate candidate
Ronnie Musgrove, a Federal Election Commission check
shows U.S. Attorney Jim Greenlee contributed to his
opponent.

Greenlee was nominated for the U.S. attorney post in
2001 by President George W. Bush, supported by
Mississippi Sens. Thad Cochran and Trent Lott.
On Oct. 11, 2002 - just weeks before then-U.S. Rep.
Roger Wicker won another term in Congress - Greenlee
made a donation of $200 to Friends of Roger Wicker [...]
In U.S. District Court, where Greenlee is the chief
prosecutor, two Georgia company executives recently
pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign
contribution to then-Gov. Musgrove's 2003 re-election
campaign. They admitted they hoped to ask Musgrove for
help as they realized the Mississippi Beef Plant
construction project was in trouble.

The project ultimately failed, leaving hundreds of
people out of work and the state of Mississippi holding
the bag on millions of loan guarantees. Two men have
gone to prison on related fraud charges.

However, Musgrove has not been indicted and repeatedly
insists he did nothing wrong.

Scott Horton has taken notice of this one, as it shares
similarities with the Siegelman case that he's been
following closely - a former Democratic governor in the
Deep South, a Republican operative masquerading as a US
Attorney, and trumped-up charges designed to take down
Musgrove. These executives plead guilty to the illegal
contributions in a plea deal:

The three, all executives with The Facility Group of
Smyrna, Ga., were largely left off the hook on the more
serious charges that they had swindled the state out of
at least $2 million and had left the plant's vendors and
contractors holding the bag. Instead, they were allowed
in a plea bargain to confess to trying to buy influence
with Musgrove by steering $25,000 to the then-governor's
unsuccessful re-election campaign in 2003.

The orchestrated guilty pleas - and the prosecutors'
suggestion that more indictments could be forthcoming -
are a boon to the campaign of Republican Roger Wicker,
who was appointed to the vacant Senate seat in December
but is considered vulnerable. They leave a cloud over
Musgrove in voters' minds and provide more fodder for
negative campaign ads from the G.O.P. camp, even though
Musgrove has not been charged with any wrongdoing and
there's nothing in the court records to document he did
anything illegal.

Well, maybe we can get somebody over at the Justice
Department to investigate. Or I know, an independent
body like the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights! Anyone
know any of their new hires?

It looks like Hans von Spakovsky, an old TPM favorite,
is back in business. The former Justice Department
official, whose nomination to the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) was thwarted when Democrats objected to
his long record of support for restrictions on voting
rights, has been hired as a "consultant and temporary
full-time employee" at the ostensibly bi-partisan U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) the agency confirmed
to TPMmuckraker [...]

Among Spakovsky's duties will be overseeing the USCCR's
report on the Justice Department's monitoring of the
2008 presidential elections, a source inside the USCCR
told TPMmuckraker.

Spakovsky's hiring is at the request of Commissioner
Todd Gaziano, who works for the conservative Heritage
Foundation on FEC issues and has defended Spakovsky in
the press before. According to a federal government
source, Gaziano has recommended Spakovsky at the
government's highest payscale -- which would work out to
about $124,010 annually if Spakovsky was to stay for an
entire year.

Looks like we're in good hands.
_____________________________________________

But on the Other Hand, More Good News about Barack

Barack Obama's audience for his acceptance speech likely topped 40 million people, and the Democratic gathering that nominated him was a more popular television event than any other political convention in history.

More people watched Obama speak from a packed stadium in Denver on Thursday than watched the Olympics opening ceremony in Beijing, the final "American Idol" or the Academy Awards this year, Nielsen Media Research said Friday. (Four playoff football games, including the Super Bowl between the Giants and Patriots, were seen by more than 40 million people.)

Now, of course, the McCain camp will say it's all part of Barack's "celebrity." Then, with contradictory logic, argue that Johnny Mac's the one who can inspire Americans to do the things necessary to secure a better future for our posterity. :snicker: Good luck, Johnny Mac, inspiring upwards of 270million people when hardly 10thousand even wanna hear you speak.

More about Sarah Palin

. . . from Americans United for Change.

At Americans United for Change, we've already done a little digging, and it turns out Sarah Palin fits in perfectly with John McCain's backwards energy policy, disregard for the environment, and cozy relationship with Big Oil.

Palin has argued again and again in favor of oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, despite clear dangers to surrounding wildlife.

This year, Palin sued the federal government for adding polar bears to the endangered species list, arguing the move would interfere with oil and gas drilling efforts.

Palin's close relationship with Big Oil fits right in with John McCain's reckless energy plan: take millions in campaign donations from oil companies, and in return give them massive tax breaks and free reign to drill in environmentally sensitive areas.

Now understand, I am not Taylor Marsh fan. She was a Clinton hold-old. But even she's hating on Sarah Palin, so you know this can't be good.

If you got more to say, you can leave your comments here or at Americans United for Change or with Taylor Marsh. Err . . . preferably here, though. Personally, I think she's wrong on any possibly policy matter, and is just in line for McCain's 3rd wife. And what does this say about Johnny Mac's "judgement?" Basically, he has none.

Here's My Analysis of the McCain's Pick for VP

How Racism Works

I graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The one and only Carolina. I'm Tarheel born and Tarheel bred.

And I. Hate. Duke.

Hate. Duke.

I can't stress that enough. Sure, I have friends who graduated from Duke. A friend of mine is working on a doctorate degree from Duke. I may even attend Duke's grad school myself. But let me be clear.

I. Hate. Dook.

Hate'em. Hate'em. Hate'em.

It doesn't take much to rouse my hatred. Just hearing the word "Duke" pushes my buttons. Just seeing the image of a blue devil makes me wretch a little.

A lot of the time, all it takes is for me to see that deplorable Duke blue.

I can be somewhere talking about something else, say, men in general. The new pieces of eye-candy on prime time TV. I hate Gary Dourdan was killed off CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. But I love that Hill Harper is on CSI: New York. He is delicious! And what can I say about Shemar Moore other than gorgeous.

Then, as soon as I see that dook blue, whether it was a car that drove by or just a passer-by, my. skin. crawls.

Because I. Hate. Dook.

And what's funny is that I used to be a Duke fan. I used to think that Dean Smith's teams were excessively cocky and cheered anytime they got beat. Then it came time to apply for college. I applied for Carolina after a campus visit. The campus felt like home. I decided not to apply for Duke after I saw their thick application. Duke wanted to know too much. My response was, "Mind your own business." It only took a few months at Carolina to come to hate. Dook.

Now, here's how racism works. First of all, we've been steeped in white supremacy in America for centuries. It doesn't take long for European and Asian immigrants to learn that African Americans are socially a level beneath. Even immigrants from Africa and the Caribbeans know to keep their distance from American blacks. Right?

And there are lies and myths about African Americans that have been around for centuries. We're lazy. We're insolent. We hate "whitey." We're wasteful. Because of affirmative action, we get things we don't deserve. We complain. We're liars. We're cunning. By the same token, we can be easily fooled. We're easily scared. And even though we have amazing rhetorical skills, that's all we have: rhetorical skills. There's not much backing up the bluster. We're irresponsible, whether that comes to work or family. Then there're the contradictory myths of the scary black beast and the weak black "boy."

Historically, military leaders have been reticent to put African Americans at the front lines of war, believing we'd be too scared to fight. Even during the Civil War where we had the most to lose or gain. Every since then, our "love of the country" has been questioned.

But, historically, the trait white Americans have been loathed to see in African Americans is self-sufficiency. Independent black folks have historically been hated and feared. As much as some members of mainstream America complain about the amount of government assistance African Americans receive, mainstream America just doesn't know how to deal with a black person who's not accountable to some white person, preferably a white man. Read a history book. Check out some of the more recent, accurate scholarship on racial history from post-slavery to the 1950s. Most of the black men who were lynched hadn't committed any crime aside from running successful businesses. Educated black people who spoke eloquently were labeled "uppity" and were seen as definitely "out of their place."

So, what's my point? How does racism works?

It works kinda like my disdain for Duke. No one has to say, "Don't vote for Obama because he's black." Just look at him. You know he's black. John McCain doesn't have to point out that Obama doesn't look like any other person on the dollar bill to run a racist campaign. He just has to use code words. Then, when Obama tries to bring racism to the sunlight, McCain can cry "race card" as though he, McCain, is the victim.

So what do they say to be racist? They say, "Look, he's presumptuous," walking around Europe like he's already won the presidency. They say, "Look, you don't know that much about him." Cause you can never know too much about black people. (Oh, and in the past, is was seen as white people's duty to know everything about any particular black person.) They question his patriotism. I've heard/read comments about how he's an "empty suit" and how he "just tricking, cunning voters." All these are negative traits that are historically attached to blackness.

That's part of the reason Barack Obama is running from blackness in some ways. That's why he couldn't risk seconding the truth Jeremiah Wright told about America. That's why he had to reject an endorsement from Louis Farrakhan that he didn't even ask for!

They even accuse him of "elitism." A black man in America an elitist?! Take a moment to consider the facts. Black men are more likely to be in prison than college. Even for equal experience and education, they earn less than white men. The unemployment rate for black men is about twice that of the unemployment rate for the general population. Obama's the only black person in the Senate. He attended ivy league schools for both undergrad and law school. And while "ivy league" may be off-putting to people who weren't accepted, do you really know anyone who could go to such a school and wouldn't? And would you call that person an elitist or extraordinarily smart?

Now, let me be clear. It is not the case that any and every criticism of Obama comes down to racism. If you really think taxes should be low for wealthy people, that government should be privatized, that the Iraq Occupation is going great, those are all non-racist criticisms of Obama.

But if you're issue is that he's an "empty suit" or "all talk, no action," which just isn't true; you haven't been listening; that's based on racism. That's what McCain's "celebrity" attack ads are about - black people can be famous, but never serious. And make no mistake about it, black people can be racist against other black people, too. That's why Joe Watkins is always shucking and jiving, shilling for the Republican Party even if he has to lie and deceive himself. (And let me say here, my criticism of Joe Watkins, who happens to be a pastor, isn't that he's not fallen in line with black America, but that he's lying and being deceptive to the disadvantage of black America. If his criticisms were based on policy and not deception, I wouldn't be mentioning him. And while I'm on Republican shillers, Brad Blakely is an imbeccile.)

But the criticism that is most racist is the notion that he's "presumptuous" or "arrogant." I didn't hear such criticisms about Hillary Clinton while she continued to run a primary campaign even after it was clear she'd lost. I still don't hear such criticisms about either Clintons even now while they dominate the convention and refuse to get their supporters under control.

And even after John McCain upstaged the president by making a statement about the Georgia/Russia conflict before Bush did, I don't remember much criticism about his presumption or arrogance. I heard a few comments that by sending his own delegation to Georgia, he was coming close to upstaging the president in an unattractive manner. But nothing about presumption.

If you're accusing Obama of elitism on the bases of his eating arugula and shopping at Whole Foods . . . you're just delusional.

If you're afraid that he's gonna sign an executive order demanding all white Americans everyday give a black person $100 bucks, you're just racist.

So, here's some advice to help you be sure you're views of Barack Obama aren't marred by racism. Cause quite frankly, mainstream/white America, you've never been clairvoyant at recognizing racism even when it knocked on your door wearing a "I hate darkie" t-shirt, holding a noose, and introducing itself as racism.

First of all, keep your critique to policy. There's nothing racist about a policy disagreement. Second of all, keep your critique based on truth and facts. Obama's vote for the FISA act was not a flip-flop. All along, he's said he's about compromise and getting things down.

And finally, before you voice your criticism of Obama or except someone else's, ask yourself and others, "Would we be criticising him for that if he were white?"

To make my point about the racially-biased difference in descibing people as "presumptuous," Jon Stewart.

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!

Vote for Paris!!

You knows how I do. First, I gotta stick it to John McCain.


What happened?


Ummm, yeah. McCain hasn't supported equal rights his whole career. He was public with his opposition to the Ledbetter Act just a few months ago. Take note, while the central issue is women's rights, the rights of minorities to receive equal pay is involved as well. But. Guess you can't blame the Alitos and Bushes and McCains of the government for being against such a bill. Not only will companies be forced to account for pay discrimination in the last generation, they may also have to account for all that "discrimination" from decades past.


Now for the woman of the hour. The incomparable Paris Hilton not having sex but still telling John McCain to . . . er . . . um. Let's just say she tells McCain not to accuse her of being vacuous anymore.

Some White Folks Is Crazy!

Crazy white folks. (Not all. Just some, of course. Cause, this isn't, you know, typical of them.) Acting like they can't tell the difference between being charged for having said or done something racist and being racist. They act like there're difference degrees of racism. For example, E.J. Dionne told Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC that there're some white people who aren't pure racist who may still have a problem with a black president.

Umm, yeah, E.J. That's call a racist.

But, I do agree with E.J. on this, "Like it or not, Obama's race is an issue, just as John F. Kennedy's religion was an issue in 1960 -- and racism runs deeper in our history than anti-Catholicism." And this, "Is this unfair? Yes, it is. But if our nation is to cast off the shackles of race this year, Obama will have to grapple more than he'd like with the burdens that our history and the past travails of liberalism have forced him to bear."

And I have to say that while I agree with Eugene Robinson's opinion, linked here and above, on the whole, the crimes against humanity committed against African Americans continued into the 1970s and today. Black folk aren't so much concerned about "racial sins" committed long ago so much as the "racial sins" committed nowadays. Like Texas State Republicans selling a button asking, "If Obama is president, will we still call it the White House?"

But other than that, I agree with Eugene's assertion that, "I'm confident that Sen. Lindsey Graham and the rest of John McCain's front-line surrogates know full well what messages they're sending about Barack Obama and race. On the off chance that they -- or, more likely, some of the white voters they're trying to reach -- don't know text from subtext from context, here's a deconstruction."

And there's one last thing I wanna touch on.

It would be unfair, however, for Obama's campaign to cry "racism" every
time Republicans try to define the Democrat in unflattering terms. It would also
be a mistake, likely to backfire with voters who won't take kindly to a relative
newcomer trying to exempt himself from the ordinary, if unfortunate,
rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign.

That's Andres Martinez's take on why Barack Obama is farther ahead of John McCain. I'm kinda tired now, so let me just tease the point . . . Martinez is wrong.

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.

John McLiar

Update #2: Here's Bob Herbert going off on the McCain campaign. Er . . . uh . . . whoa.

You knew something was up back in March when, in his first ad of the general
campaign, Mr. McCain had himself touted as “the American president Americans
have been waiting for.”

Oh, there's more.

Update: The NY Times editorial board takes McCain to task and brings up an issue I hadn't even considered. The first time we hear of the "race card" being played from the "bottom of the deck"? . . . OJ Simpson. How's that for playing the "race card"?

John McCain, in a press conference today, said that he didn't bring up race in the campaign, that Barack Obama did. I disagree, but that's not the lie I'm referring to. The lie I'm referring to is McCain's insistence that Obama retracted the comments that started the debate. Obama hasn't. And he shouldn't.

There're also some dillusional comments McCain makes about his running a respectful campaign. Here's a pretty good assessment of the issue:

From TPM Election Central -

McCain: Our Campaign Isn't "Negative In The Slightest"
By Greg Sargent - August 1, 2008, 4:38PM

John McCain just held a presser in Florida. Here are the, er, high points:

• Said "I don't think our campaign is negative in the slightest." There are negative McCain ads running as we speak, and in the very same presser, he attacked Obama for injecting race into the campaign again.

• Blamed Obama for bringing up the issue of race in the campaign, and repeatedly said that Obama had "retracted" his charge that McCain is using race. It was obvious by the repetition of "retracted" that this was a cooked up talking point, and it was apparently a reference to the fact that the Obama campaign said it didn't think McCain had used race in the campaign.

But this wasn't a "retraction" at all: The Obama camp hasn't conceded he said that in the first place.

• Said he wants to move on from the race debate. But his campaign manager Rick Davis aggressively attacked Obama for allegedly playing the race card just today.

• Described a new Web ad implying that Obama believes he's the Messiah as "having some fun."
Is it happy hour yet?

Obama responding to the issue, "There was nobody there who thought at all that I was trying to inject race in this."

Where's McCain's Substance?

Admittedly, I got the idea from Jon Stewart. But after I started thinking about it, I actually wonder . . . where's John McCain's substance? What's his experience and qualifications for being president of the US? Where does he stand on the issues? And that stance, is that today, yesterday, or are you guessing ahead for tomorrow?

I was gonna google McCain and his flip-flops. But, wow! Some, I already know. He's flipped on affirmative action and taxes. He says he disagreed with Bush on war strategy, but that took awhile to kick in. He's flipped on oil-drilling and energy policy.

So, McCain's substance? Get back to me and let me know.