John Kerry Endorses Barack Obama

I'm not a big fan of politico. I'm a fan, just not a big one. But this is good news to me.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the Democratic Party's 2004 presidential nominee, will endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president in South Carolina today, Democratic sources told Politico. Kerry is flying to South Carolina for an event to be held shortly after 11 a.m. in Charleston, the sources said. Obama is holding a "Rally for Change" at the College of Charleston ahead of the Democrats' South Carolina
primary on Jan. 26.

. . .

For Obama, this endorsement fills a particular need: In addition to winning the nomination in 2004, Kerry is considered a strong voice on national security issues and a respected elder of the Democratic establishment.

Neither of those factors would do much for Clinton, who is strong on both. But Obama needs to show donors, voters and activists that he can attract more traditional support and win over the decision-makers in the party.

Steve Benen of the Carpetbatter Report had this to say:

Regardless, I look at this as a pretty significant boost for Obama, if not in votes, than at least in stature. Kerry is arguably one of only a handful of national Democratic leaders, and a member in good standing of the Democratic establishment, most of which is backing Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

This Is One Reason a Democrat MUST Win in November

The Supreme Court is atrociously divided along partisan lines. It's sickening!

I just watched Jim Lehrer and a report on the case concerning the Indiana voter ID law. According to the reporter (whose name I can't recall), Robertson, Alito, and Scalia displayed suspicion against the voting rights advocates; Ginsburg and Breyer display suspicion against the state.

Let me give you some background. Indiana's law requiring voters to present photo ID is supposed to help curb voter fraud. There are two problems with that theory:

1. Illegal voter suppression and intimidation is much more prevalent than voter fraud, which primarily concerns people voting who shouldn't be.
2. There's very little evidence of voter fraud.

Even Scalia had to admit there seemed to be little benefit from the law. He also questioned how much burden the law places on people, which I attribute to his conservative, privileged white male perspective. He wondered how the court could make a decision. I think the answer is easy - find in favor of the people's right to vote.

With this law, a voter would either have to present a driver's licenses or go through the hassle of obtaining a state ID card. The hassle would include, for example, having to pay for a birth certificate to present in order to get the ID. That'll be harder for some than others, but it'll cost anyone. On the face of it, it sounds like 21 century poll taxes, reading tests, etc or, rather, simply James Crow, Jr, Esquire.

If a voter doesn't have ID at the time of the vote, they can vote by provisional ballot which would only be counted if they arrived at the county courthouse in the county seat to either show an ID or sign an affidavit saying they're too poor to afford a state photo ID. It could be just me, but if I'm too poor to afford a state photo ID, I may also have trouble getting to the county seat.

Voting rights advocates believe the law will place undo burden on the poor, who'll be disproportionately minorities, and elderly. Both of who usually skew towards the political left. The state wants to prevent fraud, which isn't happening. And back to the point of this post, the Court's conservatives are doubting the voting rights advocates and the liberals, or in the case, the reasonable justices, doubt the state.

Voter ID laws (20 states have a form of one) arose in response to presidential election of 2000. That makes Indiana's law and any law like it a joke! The problem with the 2000 election, Florida and Tennessee admit, is that people were illegal prevented from voting. The problem had nothing to do with dead people voting, or Illinois voters voting in Michigan.

Yeah, I'm biased. I think the law is a fraud. Yeah, I'm siding with the liberals. But I think it's ridiculous that the justices are so partisan. This case, indeed Indiana's law, has more to do with partisanship than actual law. Especially considering the facts as I earlier laid out, it would seem Indiana should be making sure all eligible voters can vote; the state has nothing to gain by having this law on the books. The only entity that stands to gain is the state's Republican party. It's just plain mess that the Supreme Court could display such differences in what's obviously a partisan law in the first place. Either the law is Constitutional or it's not; it either protects rights and withholds rights. Even honest conservatives will admit that voter ID laws are unnecessary. The point is to keep Democratic leaning voters from being heard. And the Supreme Court is divided? And this is the Supreme Court of the vaunted United States of America? This is what we're allegedly trying to spread around the world? Give me a break!

And to make matters worse, the Bush administration is arguing on behalf of voter ID laws at the same time it admits that voter fraud is a myth. The administration's argument is that since so many people may not vote because they think that their vote won't matter due to voter fraud, in order to build voter confidence, there should be laws to prevent voter fraud. The argument is specious on its face. But then to add to the sheer putridness of the administration, it has been the administration and other conservative partisan groups who spread the falsities of voter fraud, which the claim will place doubt in the minds of legal voters, in the first place.

Now, I could be over-reacting. The cases hasn't been decided; the report I heard was about oral arguments. I hope it's properly decided. I really do. But the divide on the Court isn't just ideological; it's partisan. It's sickening. It's embarrassing.

If the rights of people to vote, to receive equal pay, not to experience harassment on the job, etc, etc, etc is to be protected, a Democrat president has to be elected. The Democrats have to fight on behalf of the people who are least able to fight on behalf of themselves.

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.

Say What Now Huh?

According some members of the right, should Barack Obama wins the Democrat nomination but then loses the presidency, America should fear riots and violence from "certain segments" of society. You'll have to see the link for the entire quote. I was going to publish it but decided against giving more space to racism.

So, lets forget the "bourgeois riots" of members of the GOP of 2000 and the peaceful protests of that same year led by the Reverend Jesse Jackson. (Thanks to Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com for pointing this out.) Forget the rally in Jena, LA just this past fall this remained peaceful, divine help or not. Let's ignore the Olympic riots of 2002 whose participants were mostly (if not all) white. You know what, while we're at it, let's just pretend that the US doesn't have a history of racial riots where whites have killed and destroyed black lives and communities.

I have to say, it's rare that something so racist is said and passed as intelligent commentary and analysis. Not that I don't think there shouldn't be riots should the Democrat presidential nominee, whoever that may be, lose in 2008. Already, Republicans, with the help of the Bush administration, is looking to suppress votes. (There has been recent success in blocking these efforts.) But to continue living under and farther spreading the delusion that blacks are inherently violent while whites are either saints or misunderstood in ridiculous.

And just in case you wondering, no, this isn't what I had planned as far as detailing structural racism in the US. I'm left to wonder, though, who in their right mind can actually believe, or purport to believe, all Americans are competing on a level playing field and while simultaneously maintaining such racist notions. And, no, I haven't even gotten into some of the more ridiculous self-congratulations for the demonstration of white colorblindness from a man who advocates the abortion of all African American babies. But, I will.

To be perfectly honest, and I should be, the Obama's campaign has led to some altercation. Granted it was on the part of Bill O'Reilly, but an altercation nonetheless. I'll also admit that if you wanna get a better feel for the story as well as the recent history of riots led by European Americans, you should check out the links.

Hallelujah, Barack!!!

Yeah! I'm thrilled that Barack Obama has won the Iowa caucus!!

John Edwards came in second, and Hillary Clinton third. Obama has an 8 point lead over Edwards and 9 points over Clinton. Before the pundits act like the race was closer than it was, he beat Clinton by the same percentage points that Mike Huckabee beat Mitt Romney. They've made Huckabee's win sound like a blowout, and if Huck's win is a blowout, so is Obama's.

Let me first say that I'll support any Democrat over any Republican in November, but Obama is my man. Apparently, for some, the biggest fault he has is that he doesn't present "substance" enough. He doesn't speak about the particulars of what he'll do as president. I have two points to make to those who bring up that not so salient point: look at his website; and, all liberals and progressives agree on what needs to be done. What we may not all agree on is how to bring about the changes we want, and to hate on Barack Obama for essentially not being saying the obvious, saying what everybody's agreeing on, is tacky. Update: I meant to point this out last night, but here's how pundits are saying it'll work out:

• New Hampshire: the independents, who make up 40% of registered voters in NH, are likely to vote in the Democratic primary and vote for Barack.
• South Carolina: African American, who make up 50% of registered Democrats in SC, seeing that Barack is actually viable and white Americans will vote for him, will most likely support him and support him overwhelmingly.
  

So what do I think this says in the long run? Well, some independents and usually Republican voters caucused for Obama. Young people who never caucused before caucused for Obama. Women caucused for Obama. I'm listening to his speech now, and he is making it about the people and what they did tonight. He is promising to bring about change, unity, and ending corporate lobbyist influence. He's talking about affordable healthcare for everyone, renewable energy, ending the Iraq Occupation, restoring our standing in the world, and a more progressive tax code. And still, he's making it about the people. He has a marvelous chance to win it all.

Now, my biggest interest lately has been anti-racism, so, yes, I see race. I have to say as an African American, I'm thrilled. And happily so. This gives me hope as an African American. This gives me hope as an anti-racist.

But let's not get overly excited. This by no means indicates that race is no longer an issue in America. In the coming days and weeks, I hope to lay out how racism still disadvantages people of color and how the legacy of slavery still leaves African Americans far behind our European American counterparts.

Tonight, suffice it to say that Obama's win, however heartwarming it is, and it is heartwarming, by no means our country is now "colorblind." Obama won, but he did not win by promising reparations. He has had little to nothing to say about race, but I mentioned in an earlier post why that doesn't bother me greatly.

I need to add, my mother is telling me that Obama's speech echoed John Kennedy's speeches of the 60s. She's telling me I'm witnessing history; I am. Barack Obama is the first African American to win a caucus, first actually to be a viable candidate. I don't quite have the words for how I feel, but this is great. This is the work I'd like to do. I want to get the US to a place where it doesn't take over 200 years since its founding and over 100 years since the end of slavery for everyone to be equal in every sense of the word. And, again, we're still not equal. I mean, come on. Out of now around 14 presidential candidates (Chris Dodd and Joe Biden dropped out), only 1 is Black and can't say a word about his Blackness lest he be perceived as playing the "race card." Come on.

So, anyway, there'll be much more to come!