Editorial

Pastor Rick is my Brother, Too.

By Woodrow Jarvis Hill

To understand why I approve of putting Rick Warren on that stage, I need to go back to an eariler writing of mine, "Abortion is a Moral Choice".
More to the point, I must, first, go back to a section of the article that sparked my writing:

What changed?

I don't remember the day. But that day didn't come until after I'd met people -- surprise! -- who'd chosen abortion. It came after my school friends became parents; after I began having sex and selecting birth control; after I experienced and witnessed sexual harassment.

In short, it happened after pro-choice rhetoric took a human shape. I saw those I loved. I saw myself.

[...]

I didn't "switch sides;" I'm against the notion of "sides" in the first place.

One of the hardest things I have to do, is fight and support for a ruling, and it's support network, that I think was wrongly decided and painfully implemented.

Yes, as I've said before, and will say again -- I think Roe. vs. Wade is bad law.

But it's also right. It's what the law should be, by and large. There is no doubt in my mind that Abortion Rights are proper and important -- and if I ever doubt, all I have to recall is the faces of those women who told story after story of lie before the ruling. Of facing not just coathangers, but all manner of barbarous chemical aborifacants, and the ugly hands of Doctors who did the safer of the underground procedures, but at the cost of a women's dignity and money.

You can't pay me enough to go back to that system. And you can't pay me enough to switch.

And yet, I'm fully aware that the ruling left America behind. It was, sadly, ahead of it's time. It is simply the case that the average American was, at that point, still unaware of the horrorshow of underground abortions. They still thought it was a procedure done, by and large, by "bad girls" -- and that the exception they snuck in, was much like the exceptions many Pro-Life folks give themselves, today, when they get Abortions.

If there had been a National push, a dialog, a way to frame Abortion Rights in similar ways that MLK et.al. framed Civil Rights, and that, indeed, Feminists developed for other parts of the cause, I think our National dialog on abortion would be much different, today. If "we" had worked to not press the right simply in courts and legislatures, it might have come out much as Miscegenation did; since Interracial Marriage was so closely tied to the growing mass consensus that Racism Is Wrong, even though the majority of Americans were against it when Loving vs. Virgina came down, that law was far easier to integrate (pun intended) into the National Landscape.

There aren't many exceptions with Gay Marriage, but there is one rule. There needs to be a dialog. There needs to be words spoken, in public, over and again. There needs to be communication, not just with the unwashed masses, but also with people who oppose the idea. This is how Racism became a non-no -- not because of laws, but because of words and deeds and actions that alerted a sleeping America that there was a horrid wrong being perpetrated on some of her people. The images of attacking dogs, police beating, and water hoses upon peaceful marches weren't just a side-show, they were the show, and the showcase for why action was needed right now. They were the way to open up the dialog .

And just as the people who led the Civil Rights movements, and movements before and since, had to dialog with people diametrically to them, so now have we a change to open up dialog with Pastor Rick Warren. To shift his words and perhaps even his deeds. To provide him with God's Own Truth as to the results of his words and actions on Gay Marriage -- and so much more -- over the last few years. If he is, indeed, a Christian man, as he says, and the harbinger of a new detante and re-focus for Evangelicals, then we who stand for not just openness, but diplomacy and dialog with most, should embrace this furor, build upon the media fury, and expose him to the honest assessment of America; that a man who speaks hate about people who love is a man who misunderstands his own words, and risks hypocrisy -- a sin mentioned far more often by Jesus than Homosexuality; indeed, any sexuality.

I know what you say, "But Woodrow, what if it doesn't work?" Well, perhaps one should ask a certain M. Etheridge how her attempt went, first:

I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say "In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him." They gave him my phone number. On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife's struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine.

When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.

And now, Warren's church has pulled the "No Homosexuals Need Apply" language from their website.

"All symbols," you might say. The post noting the pulling even goes so far as to imply Obama might have had something to do with the pulling, with (so far as I know) no evidence.

But the entirety of this fight is about symbols! And if someone who is standing as a symbol, takes pains to stand up, and do things that walk back from the nature of what makes him an unacceptable symbol, what then the symbolism?

Perhaps this is the point where we can stop demonizing our opposition as a kneejerk reaction. This is the point where we understand that they are wrong, yet are too also human. That change doesn't have to be about broad symbols and lines int he sand, but about the slow and painful, slogging work of Just Talking. That we take to our rigtheous and right anger, and descend upon the streets as a last resort, after talking and attempting to understand have failed.

Not every fight, not every social ill, not every opponent can be worked this way. But, perhaps -- just perhaps -- Obama looked at Warren, and saw someone who could be changed, who could be led to understand the pain so many Homosexuals see in the American society -- as got a taste of after McClurkin. And he risked all this displeasure, all this anger, to give him that chance.

It seems to have already paid off. We shall see, going forward, if A Change is Gonna Come, indeed. I close with more of Melissa Etheridge's words:

Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world's attention. We have the capability to create change, awesome change in this world, but before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure, there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.

Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.

Quickie debate recap...

That, "my friends", was a good old-fashioned ASS-WHOOPIN'!...


McCain: *@#^^%$^#!&(!@%!#&(!%(%!*^@%#!%@^#^!!!!

Obama: Step aside pops. Lemme show ya how it's done.


This was the "hot" debate we've all be waiting for and Obama was on fire.
It was almost painful to watch McCain desperately fumble his way through a botched attack strategy and fall flat on substantive issues.
Obama was so solidly on point that McCain looked like he was going to self-combust due to lack of real details to back up his assertions.

Obama was cool.
Obama was collected.
Obama was thoughtful.
Obama was detailed.
Obama was nimble.
Obama was firm.
Obama was well versed in both candidates' policy points.
Obama showed leadership.
Obama was presidential.

McCain? Was. Angry.

Editorial

FISA, Obama, and sloppy "liberal" activism.

By Woodrow Jarvis Hill

Let me be absolutely blunt here. FISA is a farce. Compared to the stuff already in place (see ECHELON), we're already in a Police State (if you'd care to use such a loaded term). This isn't stupid conspiracy talk, this is the reality of having something like the NSA floating around. This is the reality of having a government that, decades ago, in my Mom and Pop's lifetime, decided to wiretap Martin Luther King, among others, in ways that could never go to court, just for leverage.

So, wanna change it? Then you need to change the damned system, not yell at the people having to play their best in the current, highly broken one. Because the reason the Republicans can do what they do isn't just because of a well-ordered leadership. The GOP takeover wasn't just about Rovan tactics, or even Atwater tactics. It was about them building a long-term plan to change the discourse in America, and to provide lots of firepower for the people pushing their goals.
That's the big trick, the one no one talks about because it's not "sexy". The development of organizations like the Heritage Foundation, and the fusion and creation of groups like the Moral Majority, built an infrastructure for Conservatism that was able to work it's way into many aspects of life. And Reagan won based on that structure, as well as his native talents, not just the latter alone. Again, look at how the media covers it -- they go for the "sexy" story, not the deep analysis that's closer to the truth.
These groups were willing to get hands dirty - and I don't just mean in the illegal way. They were, and are, willing to be as active as possible in the political process. Even better, they do so on all levels of government , realizing that the local school board is a distinctly unglamorous job, but it's also one few people want to run fo. Therefore, not only does it possess considerable power, but it's easy to control -- perfect for initial strikes to "Think globally, act locally".
In this wise, the GOP support system is proactive, with deep-laid plans.

Compare that to the so-called netroots, the people loudly whining about FISA and Obama today. They are, without question, highly reactive -- you hardly can get them to move unless they're busy being pissed off at someone. Mind you, there's something to their approach which is good, and I'll address that some other time. What's bad is that they really play "hands-off" with regards to the actual political game. Their lobbying is at a distance, their fund-raising is too specific, and their long-term strategy is as crappy as the average fast-growing high-tech company, with about as much potential for failure.
Where's the planning for structures that'll help Progressives to win local elections -- the elections that serve as stepping stones to high office? Where's the planning to build Progressive majorities in new areas that aren't ones, now? Kos has brilliant ideas about high elective office, but blinders about how day-to-day politicking works. He wants it to be clean, and happy, and ideologically pure. Real politics is never, indeed cannot, be any of that. In fact, much of our current problems stem from the fact that opposing sides aren't even supposed to be friends outside of "the office", these days. Polarization is killing the political system.

Now, compare that to Obama and Howard Dean (and his 50 State Strategy). The reason to support Obama isn't just because he's the Democratic Candidate. It's because, in his wake, he's pushing like mad for people to actually get involved, directly, with their Democracy. How many times do I have to write, in this blog, that this is the marvel, the true power, of his campaign? They both see that the Democratic Party is almost depressingly disorganized, and although I'm used to it, in the face of a determined and organized (if currently demoralized) enemy, you must update tactics and planning to accommodate the new reality. You cannot build a Democratic, or even a Progressive, majority, simply by typing on the Internet.

What few commentators really get is that it's so obvious that Obama is building out parts of a long-term Democratic structure, so obvious that even Karl Rove admits to it. And it's one that will aid the GOP, as well, in smaller doses. TheObama Fellows aren't likely to just go away, after all, nor are people like me who helped in the campaign. For the first time, literally millions of Americans have been active on the Democratic side -- including not a few GOP supporters of Obama. This is how you start the long, laborious process of shifting the internal discussion in America.

But it is long. And it is imperfect. And the FISA vote was imperfection made real. He needs to know we're not happy; I made the calls, like many of you. And I support the FISA group on my.barackobama.com. It's important that diverse voices be part of this discussion, and it's an important one. But it's also important that we learn how to support the people who are supposed to be supporting us.

Democracy is a two-way street. It's never been enough, and is certainly not enough today, to simply vote for the right guy, and then play armchair quarterback. The GOP can get away with much because they know they have multiple, redundant fallback systems of support. Democrats don't. Therein lies so much of the so-called "spineless" attitude we pin on them. It's true, it true. But if you really want change, want to see things move in the direction you support, you've got to play in the game.

And the simple fact is there's a a guy running who's offering to deal you in. Who's offering, in exchange for your support, to give you access, training, support, and people in similar situations, and doing so in ways that the GOP hasn't done. Who even offers his official space to create dissent against his stances, just so we'll have a vibrant, actual ecology of supporters of all points.

And you have a choice. You can continue to stand on your holy high ground, flinging feces at our best chance in years to elevate the discourse of American Politics, just so you can scream "I told you so!", and covering yourself with "But I'll vote for him, no matter how much I scream and yell at him!"

Or you can get dealt in, with Obama or with someone else or even with some organization diametrically opposed. You can figure out how to disagree without being disagreeable, without giving the opposition ammo. You can see what it's like to work this crap day-to-day, and maybe gain an understanding of what Al G means when his "been there done that" ass trashes you even harder than I have:

So, the FISA bill passed. And today began just as any other day. The sun came up. We drank a cup of coffee. Some of us lit a cigarette - or did any number of things that others do not approve of - and we were not locked up for it. To note the obvious, that the sky did not fall, is not akin to saying that a bill inoculating telecommunications companies against civil lawsuits (and retroactively so) for following invasive government orders, was a good thing. It's just to say that it is what it is, and life goes on, and so does the daily struggle to defend our personal and collective freedom on so many fronts.

Only in America do a significant number of people equate expressions of outrage and indignation du jouras somehow being akin to the hard work of political activism or participation. And I hate to say it, but this delusion is worse, much worse, on the left side of the dial where reaction is the standard operating procedure in place of authentic action. I speak, therefore I act is the great American illusion of politics. Sorry, but no. Only when our speech effectively causes others to act does it rise to the level of poetry (which, as Vaneigem wrote, "seldom exists in poems"). Have you ever had to sit through a poetry reading by a particularly bad poet? That's what I feel like when I find myself to trying to listen to what too many people consider activism. They're blathering on and my eyes are drooping as I'm eyeing the wall clock and the exit sign, twirling my cigarette lighter as if a rosary bead necklace.

And if you're struggling with that, take some time off the 'net, go find, say, some good books and online reading on MLK, and study how activism works, and how to pick one's battles against a sea of troubles.
Trust me, there'll be battles aplenty for you to fight when you get back.

Editorial

Stop. Just...Stop. And Think.
By Woodrow Jarvis Hill


So what is it with the Clintons and Black People? Why even bring up talk like this:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.


...well, she's right about a pattern emerging. Just not the one she thinks -- Obama is actually gaining in that group of voters as Rust Belt contests go forward, as Andrew Sullivan points out.

I've tried to be fair. I've tried to be even handed. I've tried to realize that she's being hit by layers of sexism that aren't even being hinted about in the media, much less addressed (c.f. "tears"). People make mistakes. I'll make mistakes, time and again. Hell, it's a point that, perhaps, a man who's interests are such as mine are cannot also stand four-square as a Feminist*.

But enough is enough. Not only do two wrongs not make a right, but there comes a point where people of goodwill must step forward, and speak out against an ongoing trait, a disease that seems to infest her side of this race.
Who I am is informed by many things, but first and foremost, my experiences as a Man of Color. Without the starting gun of racing against a system bent against me, I don't know if I'd ever have seen the others running the same race. From Feminism to GLBT to Religious Freedom, and my current brooding over my "supposed ememy", so-called "rednecks" -- all these groups of Lesser Privliage have my suppport because I've seen what ingrained hate and fear can do, and not just to the Hated.

To Hillary Clinton:

When you run a race that digs itself further into the ground on racial issues, I'm forced to take notice, as is anyone paying close attention to the election. I'm forced to see the ongoing neglect of dealing with people on "your side" with regard to this issue -- from Bob Jonston to your husband to Ferraro -- as more than one-offs, more than missteps. It begins to hint of something systemic to how you see your chances, no matter how infetestimal, for this election. And given your history, given how much you and your husband have done for "my people", I can only imagine that you're doing and allowing these things to be said because it Wins Races.

This is politics, it's true. Sometimes nuance is lost, things are said in the heat of the moment, things are done for a Greater Good that look more than a little seedy and ugly at first. And it's true that you've had decades of slime, especially Sexist slime, thrown at you.

So I don't understand why you feel the urge to prove all the "politics of personal destruction" charges true. Why run a race that is doomed in ways that will only tar and slag your legacy? Is this how you wish to go down in history? Is this all that your years of hard work can, and will, amount to?

These discussions you keep having, about "states that count", and, now, "colors that count", they simply go against the core precepts of the Party who's standard you hope to bear. And moreover, they fan flames of division that many of us hoped your run, along with Senator Obama's, would help heal.

Yes, all this is a footnote in the great American Story. But it is now up to you, Senator Clinton, to decide how that footnote will read.

And I can only urge you, in the strongest of terms, to make it end on a positive, and uplifting, note.

Clinton = Huckabee

If it seems that I've been a bit behind on my posting here, it's because, for all intents and purposes, the primaries are over.
Barack Obama has effectively won the nomination.

Every pundit, analyst, and blogger who has done the math (I'm not even going to bother including links because there are simply too many of them) all come up with the same reality:

Hillary. Can't. Win.

It has now gone from an improbability to a mathematical impossibility for her to surpass Obama in pledged delegates, popular vote, or states won.
Even if she were to include Florida.

As Keith Olbermann pointed out on Countdown last night...



even if she included Michigan as well (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot), she would only be ahead in the popular vote by about 100,000 votes.
But, as Keith also (brilliantly) noted, the only way to make Michigan remotely fair would be to give Obama the "Uncommitted" votes that would rightfully be his.
This would put him back in the lead in the popular vote.

At this point she is merely pulling a "Huckabee" and hanging on for a "miracle".
Which, even people of faith know wont happen.

The only conceivable path to the nomination for her is for the superdelegates to foolishly decide to defy all logic and wisdom by essentially voting for her against the collective will of the people.
Which, of course, will piss off scores of voters and lead to a guaranteed loss in November at best.

Barack Obama is now the presumptive democratic presidential nominee for 2008.

Clinton backer deliberately stoking Wright flames...

In the cornucopia of desperate tactics and gutter politics that has come out of the Clinton campaign, none is more pathetic and despicable than the insidious and unrelenting race-bating.

Now, Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis stoops to a new low with his blatant fanning of the Rev. Wright flames (considered by many, black and white, to be a "dead horse" at this point) in the Wall Street Journal today.

Davis' FUD (obviously aimed at superdelegates), raises questions that either no one is asking or, more probably, no one cares about.
Indeed, the national and state polls reflect the "non-issue" status the Wright flap has been relegated to in the minds of voters.
Obama leads by nearly 7 points in the national average, and has been steadily closing the gaps in states that were believed to be easy victories for Clinton.

The real irony is that the recent decline in Clinton's poll numbers had nothing to do with the Obama campaign.
Rather Clinton and her subordinates have shot themselves in the foot successively over the last few weeks.

Mr. Davis has chosen (unwisely) to raise the Wright specter in a desperate attempt to take the attention off of Hillary's recent cavalcade of blunders, missteps, and outright lies.

Sorry Lanny, it wont work. The public is on to you and your not-so-fearless leader.
The voters are simply not that stupid, and are bound to be insulted by your assumption that they are.

Editorial

HIllary-Supporters and the Dutiful Daughter Syndrome

By Christopher Fung, Ph.D.

First of all let me say that this is not a jab at people who support Hillary Clinton because they agree with her stances on the issues.

But my observations of 70-80% of the "Hillary is better than Obama" stuff (and in particularly the denunciations of Obama from self-appointed "spokespeople for women" such as Gloria Steinem and Roseanne) makes me uncomfortable because there's a streak of something very nasty and unprincipled running through much of this discourse.

There's a very strong whiff of disappointed entitlement coming out of the Clinton camp. The particularly vicious exponents of this approach are suggesting that it's "Not His Time", as if this were a game of Clue or Chutes and Ladders.

This metaphor is actually quite interesting because it illuminates a particular aspect of bourgeois supremacist thinking that perverts progressive ideas such as justice into self-serving arguments about entitlement. Not surprisingly, this thought-structure also underlies the overtly racist arguments advanced by white people (usualy only to other white people) that "Obama will only work for the blacks, so we should vote for a white person".


Liberal theory argues that there are certain inalienable human rights and that access to these rights is what constitutes civilization. Entitlement to these rights is the carrot that is offered to those who wish to participate in the system as the consenting ruled.

As the exponents of privilege theory have pointed out, the beneficiaries of privilege protect themselves from the notion that they are truly advantaged by proposing and supporting the notion that the system is at least in theory, fair even if there have been failures to enforce that fairness in the past. By this logic, rewards doled out by the system have been earned by righteous behavior within the system and not as a quid pro quo in a system of structured inequality.

An implicit idea in liberal theory is that participation in the system is a guarantee that full rights will (eventually) be extended to you as a matter of course. Thus enfranchisement of white men meant that in theory all white men had the theoretical ability to become powerful politicians, cultural patriarchy meant that all men had the theoretical ability to bask in the obediance of "their" women, white supremacy meant that all whites were superior to all blacks, yellows, reds and browns, and cultural class-consciousness meant that all who learned how to be "middle class" could expect the rights of citizens as a matter of course.

The rights of "all" were never actually extended to all. Liberal democracy was no different from other forms of social structure in systematically denying full participation to marginalized groups.

White women have historically played the part of the dutiful daughter in a patriarchal family. The dutiful daughter gains recognition through adherence to her role in the family, and the possibility that she will gain real power if she stays within the system long enough to become a mother, a mother-in-law or perhaps even a ruler in her own right on the death or failure of the male heads of the family.

Just as with lower-status white men, white women have been told, "Keep your nose clean, and one day you could be one of us. We'll protect you as long as you don't question the basic mechanisms of power in our community". And for many women (those who opposed the ERA for example), this bargain proved to be acceptable.

Feminism directly challenged this consensus in the 1960s, and the response of the status quo was to subvert and neutralize the white middle-class feminist critiques of patriarchal, capitalist white supremacy by giving white women increased access to individual economic security, the dismantling of cosmetic sexism, and the provision for increased cultural, social and political privileges for white women which were not extended to brown, black and red women, nor to yellow women who did not marry white men.

With the candidacy of Hilllary Rodham Clinton, white middle class women finally feel that their decades of loyal service to the system are at last bearing fruit. It's her time because she and by extension, generations of white women have given their support to a system they know to be unfair, but like good immigrants and dutiful daughters, they have put up with the indignities in return for small but real gains, and the promise of even greater gains in the future contingent upon their continued support.

Barack Obama's candidacy is "out of time" because it violates the unwritten contract between the powerful and the consenting: We will preserve your relative superior status over others in return for your commitment to us. A black man gaining office "before" a white woman strikes at the notion of white solidarity and the rewards dutiful daughters "ought" to reap from a system that "works for them".

Obama's candidacy also exposes nagging anxieties whether the system itself is actually fair. But rather than confront this possibility, dutiful daughters would rather blame the "troublemakers" who are "spoiling it for the rest of us". In much the same way, whistle-blowers in dysfunctional families rather than abusers are often blamed for bringing unwelcome attention and "spreading lies" by other members of the family.

Make no mistake, a thwarted sense of entitlement is a very powerful force: it underlies the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution just to name four.

Just as we have seen the racist opposition emerge, so too we see the "status-quo"-ist proponents rally against Obama. To combat these, we should not buy into the frame of the arguments advanced by these opponents, but we SHOULD be aware of the power that these frames have for the electorate as a whole.

The quandry of how to bring progressive change to people who have been taught that their own personal security rests on the very things you want to dismantle is the challenge that Obama and the rest of us face. The solutions lie in keeping one part of our beings reminded of the power and desirability of real justice, and on the other reaching out to those who are in fear to find ways to address their fears while refuting the notion that their security really does rest on their position of supremacy over others.

Editorial

Racism in my feminism? You don't say...

By Karnythia

Hillary Clinton: Bow to the man, and take the vice presidency. Let our country heal. You will run in eight years and be unstoppable as a visionary world leader. You must pass through this filter first though: bow to the man.

Now, I'll bet reading that made you want to reach for a hammer right? You're thinking "What kind of sexist BS is this?" and possibly questioning my sanity. You're right. It is sexist and I would sound insane if I were typing something like this with any serious intentions behind it. Of course it would be even more ludicrous if this was actually being widely disseminated and had people agreeing with it, but that'll never happen right? Right. Except...something like it is being disseminated and people are agreeing with it. The message is a little different though. It actually reads

Barack Obama: Bow to the woman, and take the vice presidency. Let our country heal. You will run in eight years and be unstoppable as a visionary world leader. You must pass through this filter first though: bow to the woman.

and there are people that actually think this racist drivel has some validity. Now, I know at least a few people are thinking "Well it's Roseanne Barr, who cares what she has to say?" and that's probably a pretty valid response for most things. But right now she's actually just voicing the thought a lot of white feminists are harboring as they spout things like "Black men had the vote first" or when they start talking about those pesky brown women putting their skin before their gender and then have the temerity to start trying to chastise us for not operating in sisterhood. She left out the word "white" before woman, but the subtext is there for all the world to see.

Perhaps this is one of those things that hasn't been made clear in previous years so I'm going to make it clear now. I'm not going to side with a bigot against a black man. I'm not going to side with a bigot against a black woman. In fact? I'm not going to side with a bigot period. SNL had a sketch this week that is (I think) meant to be lampooning Hillary's desperation, but if you only catch the middle of the sketch? It's pretty damned racist. And it's not like this phenomenon is restricted to entertainers. Gloria Steinem, Erica Jong, and Robyn Morgan have also weighed in, and in some really ugly ways all while claiming to be looking out for all women. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign has given them no reason to stop as she can't even be bothered to say that these tactics are unacceptable. On the contrary, her official campaign has been busy indulging in similar behavior, and then insisting that Obama is playing the race card when there's even a hint of protest at the egregious displays of race-baiting. Shockingly, racism is visible well before someone sets a cross on fire in the front yard and claiming to mean no offense while repeatedly using bigotry as a campaign tactic isn't going to fly.

It's been very clear throughout this election cycle that racism was going to be a factor even as people swore up and down that sexism was worse than racism. There's this underlying idea that gender and race can be separated and that when people speak of women that umbrella means that all women (regardless of ethnicity) have the same concerns and so in this election getting to see a woman in power is far more important than any other consideration. Yet when you sit down and look at the history of the feminist movement and the transition to women being in the workplace? You're primarily talking about white women. WOC were already working. Usually in low paying jobs with no future and only a guarantee of the work being physically and emotionally draining. In fact that transition of white women to the workforce took place in large part because white women were able to hand over the care of their children to poor WOC who were shut out of even pink collar jobs for years after white women were free to pursue the dream of having it all.

That same attitude is still prevalent with so many white feminists who are willing to insist that WOC should support this grand achievement while ignoring the reality that putting a bigot (and before someone fires off an angry comment or email insisting Hillary's background is proof she isn't racist, think about that old adage with the ducks) in the White House isn't exactly in the best interests of WOC. Being a feminist doesn't make you immune to racism, or classism, or any of the other 'isms that are so frequently discussed in feminist circles. But, it seems to be one of the few 'isms that is accepted as long as it's displayed with a (thin) veneer of being about fighting the patriarchy. Look at the rhetoric from Marion Wagner, a regional director of NOW

"The issue that's not being talked about in this campaign is the blatant sexism," Wagner said, her words echoing off the granite walls. "There are some people who promote Barack Obama because they want anybody but a woman. Would they like a white man instead of a black man? Of course. But they'll take a black man over a woman. I never thought, in 2008, that we'd still be dealing with this."

who then goes on to say that Obama pulling out Hillary's chair is evidence of his sexism just to make sure we know she's not upset that he's a black candidate. Which would sound great if it weren't for the part of the article where she (like so many other white feminists) is quick to jump on the bandwagon that a vote for Obama from black women couldn't possibly have anything to do with the issues. No, it's all about them choosing race over gender which I guess is an easy assumption to make if you can't be bothered to listen to black women that aren't willing to follow your lead. After all, it's not like they have the capacity or the right to think for themselves. Oh wait...

There's an ever growing gap in the feminist movement, and I'm sure the argument is going to be made that WOC aren't willing to do what it takes to bridge the gap while ignoring that the prospect of dealing with the internalized racism of so-called allies just isn't an attractive proposition. It's not sisterhood if the movement insists on treating WOC alternately like mules, children, or part of the scenery unless it needs their support. Would I like to see a woman in the White House? Sure. But I'd really like that woman to be someone who doesn't think she has a right to my vote. Who recognizes me as an intelligent person with valid concerns even if they are different from her concerns. Who can grasp the idea that my skin color and my gender are a part of who I am; but they are not all that I am, and thus listening to what I have to say is necessary and important in order to help me achieve MY goals. I want to vote for a female President because I believe in her, not because she's Miss Daisy.

(Link to original article)

A letter from Jack Layton to Barack Obama...

Submitted by, and reprinted with permission from, Alan M. of The New Democratic Party of Canada:

Jack Layton, MP, Député

Toronto – Danforth
Leader, New Democratic Party 

Chef, Nouveau parti démocratique 

March 1, 2008


Senator Barack Obama
United States Senate
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.
20510


Dear Senator Obama:


Canadians are watching the Democratic Primaries with great interest, particularly the debate around the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Working Canadians, like working Americans, are deeply concerned that this agreement has cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and has not helped us build the greener, fairer economy that we must leave as a legacy to our children.

I have heard you say: “I believe in trade, I just want to make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just corporate profits.”

I could not agree more. It has become apparent that a rising tide does not in fact lift all boats.

Both of our countries have seen impressive economic growth rates, increased productivity and investment flows. Yet, in the United States, Mexico and Canada, income inequality has grown dramatically in the almost fifteen years since NAFTA took effect. The very wealthy have reaped most of the benefits of increased trade and investment, while ordinary people have watched high-quality manufacturing jobs move elsewhere. There is a growing gap between the rich and the rest of the people.

In Canada, this prosperity gap has reached crisis proportions. Despite the fact that most Canadians are working longer hours, 80% of families lost ground or stagnated in both earnings and after-tax returns compared to the previous generation. Real wages have not increased in more than 30 years. The share of corporate profits in our economy is at its highest point since1961, yet the corporate contribution to the public purse is declining.

In Canada, we have had ten budget surpluses in the last decade, and yet most Canadians believe they are a mere paycheque away from poverty. Eighty per cent of Canadians think the government should intervene to close the gap between the income groups. But successive Canadian federal governments have failed to deliver policies that will turn this growing disparity around. While aboriginal peoples, single mothers and recent immigrants are the most disadvantaged groups, the middle class is also losing out.

The United States and Mexico face similar challenges, albeit in quite different contexts. In your own country, the erosion of social security, the plight of the uninsured in health, the strength of powerful business lobbies in Washington and the shocking poverty of the working poor in African-American and Hispanic populations, are realities you are intimately acquainted with. Your commitment to resolving these issues explains the excitement your campaign has generated across the country. In Mexico, despite constitutional guarantees, the majority of people – including many migrant, self-employed, informal sector workers and the unemployed – have no social assistance whatsoever. The crisis in the rural sector with the most recent phase-out of agricultural tariffs will throw millions more into extreme poverty.

This growing inequality has become institutionalized through NAFTA and will become even more entrenched through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). These agreements have provoked a chill on government regulation of the economy, as international trade rules override domestic rights. Regulatory harmonization has trumped social harmony. The provisions of Chapter 11 have unduly emphasized corporate rights at the expense of our governments’ capacity to regulate in the public interest. This is sometimes correctly referred to as a democratic deficit.

The New Democratic Party has noted for over a decade the inadequacies of our free trade agreements that do not offer sufficient protection for workers, for the environment, or indeed for the capacity of governments to regulate in the public interest. We have also expressed grave concerns about the dispute settlement process, for both its procedures and the non-respect of decisions rendered – as in the case of the softwood lumber dispute between our two countries.

NAFTA, with all its weaknesses, was the first trade agreement to incorporate side agreements on labour and environmental protection. As you have noted, such side deals are not enough. While they provide documentation on the growing problems in these areas and create forums for trilateral cooperation, they do not have the authority to impose sanctions for violations of the rules or to put in place common solutions. The promised leveling up of environmental and social standards has simply not happened.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada, our caucus and our membership, I warmly welcome your commitment to rethink NAFTA. Everyday Canadians, Americans and Mexicans are ready for such leadership. Leadership that is ready to tackle complex problems with forward-looking solutions. Our two countries are trading nations, close

neighbours and culturally and historically related in many ways. I look forward to strengthening these ties in a way that respects the sovereignty of each of our countries and ensures that we are each democratically accountable to our own people. Together, we can prudently lay the groundwork to craft trade agreements which will lead to improvements for the vast majority who have been left behind since NAFTA came into effect in 1994.

The Democrats in the U.S. can count New Democrats in Canada as allies in the vital effort to improve upon NAFTA and help build a modern 21st century North American economy that is prosperous, fair and sustainable for today’s families and future generations.

Sincerely yours, Jack Layton, P.C., M.P., Ph.D.

Clearly there is support (with good reason) for rethinking NAFTA from our friends to the left in Canada as well.
This endorsement of sorts, also suggests that there is belief (at least among the leadership of the New Democratic Party of Canada) that Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton, is the American presidential candidate who will bring about that necessary change.
Thanks again to our friends in Canada for forwarding this letter.

It's all about the numbers...

On Feb. 29, I made this prediction about the outcome of Tuesday on my livejournal:

My predictions based on everything I've read so far...

Obama takes Vermont.
Texas is a statistical tie, but Obama takes more delegates.
(He's ahead in the TX polls farther than he was in Wisconsin, but I'm erring on the side of caution on this one due to too many unknowns).

Clinton takes Rhode Island.
Clinton takes Ohio (but by a fairly slim margin).

Outcome: Obama maintains delegate lead. Clinton gets bragging rights for RI and OH.

She won Ohio by a higher margin than I expected (I was figuring around 5 points), but other than that I was pretty close.

What surprised me though is that my prediction held even after the "kitchen sink" was launched.
I feel pretty good today, actually.
Obama has the same delegate lead and the math favors him clearly.

Clinton has to win every single contest from now on in order to close the delegate gap.
Possible, but highly unlikely.

Wyoming and Mississippi are both favored for Obama this weekend based on his past performance in the south and with caucuses.
There's a full 6 weeks between now and Pennsylvania.
I'm predicting now that he will loose PA, but he will cut down Clinton's lead there significantly.


Ok, now it's time to put on my "campaign advisor" hat...

Obama clearly needs to step up his game on two fronts.
1) Countering the "kitchen sink".
Not in the sense of fighting fire with fire. It's not his style, and frankly, he's not very good at that.
Rather he needs to debunk these attacks swiftly and assuredly. He did well countering the "red phone" ad, but he really tripped up on "CanNAFTA".
That gave Clinton an opening to exploit that gave her a bigger margin in OH (where the economy was the biggest issue).
He also needs to stop trying to ignore it and put the Rezko issue to bed definitively.

His campaign also needs to put more pressure on Clinton to a) release her tax returns, b) release her white house records, and c) prove her own "red phone" worthiness.

So far it looks like he's getting on that train.

2) He needs to keep a closer leash on his surrogates.
Goolsbee should not have been able to talk to Canada for any reason without Obama knowing about it.
The issue here wasn't the alleged "wink wink". That was debunked all around.
The problem was Obama stating that no meeting took place.
Technically this was true since the question was whether a meeting took place with the embassy (there was no meeting with the embassy, it was with the consulate), but Obama should have been better informed on exactly what happened prior to giving any kind of press conference.

I should also point out that Obama now has a move that he should exploit with respects to way Clinton jumped on CanNAFTA.
If he first, definitively puts the issue to bed, then paints her as being overly negative by jumping on it before she knew all the facts, he can turn this around.

That's a wrap...

Right off the bat, let me just say that Tim Russert almost, almost blew this by being overly aggressive with Clinton early on.
Thankfully he evened it out by coming down on Obama in the second half, thus avoiding a possible claim of bias.

That said...

I have never been as proud to be an Obama supporter as I was during this debate.
He didn't just have his best debate of the primaries. He had the best debate of the primaries.
He was incredibly "Presidential". Calm, focused, on point, aggressive but not overly so, and willing to compliment ideas admirably.
He showed an impressive, sure-footed command of the majority of the issues discussed.

He wasn't perfect. He had his waffling moments (particularly in the area of public financing in the general election), but his overall performance was sharp and solid.
He also displayed both his brilliant skill at deflecting non-issues, as well as a smoothly-handled ability to concede where Clinton's points warranted it.

Despite my committed support of Obama in this blog, I have been forthright in my past criticism of Obama's debating skills in other forums.
I'm not shy about pointing out where he needs to pull it together.

But tonight, due credit has to be given. He. Kicked. Ass.
Perfect tone to end the final debate on.

Clinton, as always, displayed her impressive command of policy minutia.
But beyond that, I think her tone in the beginning of the debate hurt her considerably.
Whether or not you feel that a debate moderator is acting in a way that is biased, there is simply a right and wrong way to react to it.
She reacted the wrong way. It came off sounding like one of Mike Gravel's notorious sarcastic rants.
Contrasted with Obama's coolness, Clinton did herself a disservice. Her objections looked foolish as it became clear that the she was not being unfairly questioned first the entire time (indeed, there were just as many first questions for Obama, and a few questions that were asked of them both simultaneously which Clinton jumped in to answer first on her own accord), and that Russert nailed Obama on some controversial issues for his campaign as well.

The second half of the debate was much stronger for her, but it was not the performance she needed to deliver to slow Obama's momentum.

A candidate was clearly chosen tonight, and his name is Barack Obama.

Editorial

We are no longer a nation of losers!

By Roland Madore

Why is Hillary Clinton losing the battle against Barack Obama to become the Democratic Party’s nominee for president? It’s all boiling down to which candidate has the best set of leadership skills for the 21st century. More Americans choose his set and reject hers.

We truly do deserve the government we get. And in this cycle, America feels they want, need, and deserve the leadership of Barack Obama. “It’s the People, Stupid,” who believe the time is right, and this is why so many of them, for the first time in a long while, are working nonstop to get him elected. Rather than being a “cult leader,” as the Clinton campaign so absurdly suggests, Barack Obama is in truth a “catalytic leader” because his is a transformational leadership whose mission is making the world a better place for the public good. The phrase was coined and described in the work of Dr. Jeffrey Luke of the University of Oregon. Professor Luke founded The Luke Center for Leadership: www.lukecenter.org. It seems Barack Obama has the very type of leadership style we need at this very moment of world history.

According to the Luke Center, “catalytic leadership style is based on a vision, building partnerships, collaboration, and passion.” It’s Obama’s leadership style that is representative of turning the page from the fights, divisions, and the blame game of the past to a brighter future of cooperation, unity, and real solutions for the 21st century. As a nation, we are ready and “fired up” because, rather than remaining stunned silent like deer caught in the headlights of our drivers-in-chief, we, the People have finally gained our wits. As such, we know we’re the deciders in ’08 and, at long last, we reject the George Bush-McCain autocratic style of “forcing your will upon others, not consulting with opposing voices, and falling prey to the supposed collective wisdom of a coterie that never disagreed with you” -- Quoted from weneedobama.blogspot.com

failed policies and the Clintonian bureaucratic style of egocentric calculation, secrecy, and aggressive “gotcha, must-win-at-all-costs” failed strategies. The 20th century Bush-Clinton dynasties have failed us and must end! America is turning the page to the real 21st century leadership because Yes, We Can!

Ed: It has come to our attention that this article references an earlier article posted at WeNeedObama.blogspot.com.
The original article is here.

Editorial

Obama supporters creepy?

By Roland Madore

Who are “creepy and cult-like?”

Often our news network and newspaper outlets like FOX, CNN, MSNBC, The Los Angeles Times etc.—and their “talking head” anchors, columnists, and contributors—are the ones who are “creepy and cult-like!” CNN’s recent smear of Barack Obama supporters points this out big time! Carol Costello said that audience response at a Barack Obama rally is "a scene some increasingly find not inspirational, but 'creepy,' " quoting columnists who have likened Obama supporters to members of a cult or described their enthusiasm as "creepy." On-screen text during Costello's report read: "OBAMA-MANIA BACKLASH" and "PASSION 'CULT-LIKE' TO SOME."

Personally, I get so sick and tired with the likes Pat Buchanan, Joel Stein, David Brooks, and Joe Klein who love to rain on Barack Obama’s parade. I wonder what their real motive is other than self-promotion or ratings. Like Hillary Clinton says: “Do a reality check!”

It’s a movement, all right?!? Our goal here is to lift up America and take back our government! Give some of us who are educated and fired up a break! What we’re seeing out across America can’t be stopped anyway, so it doesn’t matter what you all say. I’m convinced Barack Obama can handle the so-called cult following anyway. He’s got the even temperament, the best organization, the obvious competence, the most money, the fresh message, and the growing momentum—even with all the heaping malice!

The devil is in the details...

An ordinary citizen (who wishes to remain anonymous) compares Obama's health plan to Hillary's and finds that Clinton comes up short.
(Reposted with permission from a friend's LiveJournal)


My choice is Barack Obama. Here is why.

My #1 issue this year is universal health care. It's a personal issue for me. It was a terrifying experience for me to be pregnant and slightly above the income level Medicaid. Since I was unemployed during Babygirl's birth and most of my pregnancy, I had to have health insurance. And the only thing available to me was to continue my employer's plan through COBRA, which was difficult to apply when I moved to TX, and whose premiums were incredibly expensive. Now, with Babygirl to cover, I'm spending $600 a month to cover both of us monthly. And that's before co-pays, deductibles, and lab fees. With no income (my mom has graciously paid most of my COBRA premiums). I'm usually on the phone at least once a week with my insurance carrier getting bills adjusted, and I'm convinced the the system is utterly broken. I loathe going to the doctor because I know it means I'm going to have to spend a couple hours on the phone with the insurance company in two months to get the visit paid for. Husband, who is working full-time as a contractor right now, has not had health insurance for about a year and remains uninsured.

I've been on the fence about both candidates for some time, and I finally decided to compare their health plans to make my decision. I'm thrilled that both Democratic candidates are committed to universal health care. It's time for this ridiculous field day for HMOs and pharmacorps to end, and I would like to move as close to socialized medicine as possible (ah, Europe! Canada! You have it where it counts!). Neither candidate offers that, but both are trying to at least ensure that all Americans have health insurance.

Here's what I found. Both Obama's and Clinton's plans are pretty similar: they cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions or employment. They both offer you the choice of opting into the Federal Employee's Health Plan or Medicaid if you don't have coverage or if you don't like your current health coverage offered by your employer (if you work for the state of Texas, for example, there is only one plan you can get--no choice).

Where they really differ is in how one is to pay for the coverage. Hillary says that she will make premiums affordable by offering those with lower incomes a TAX CREDIT so that they can afford high-quality health care plans. I think this is crap. If I have cancer now and I can't afford to pay my deductible and my monthly premium and whatever percentage of the treatment I'm responsible for under my plan, then having a tax credit in April of next year is not going to keep me from going bankrupt. It's basically the government saying, "You can have the health plan, just pay out of the nose now and we'll hang on to that money for you until next summer while it earns interest and then we'll give it back to you then, OK?" Hillary's plan also proposes limiting premiums to a percentage of a family's income, but none of her literature says what that percentage is (I did quite a lot of digging on her website and found no concrete numbers on the subject). So basically, we'd be at the mercy of whatever Congress thinks is a reasonable percentage of income to pay, and what is that? Half of one's income? A third? Seeing that I believe that the government should be paying 100% of our health care and drug costs, you can see where my beef is.

Obama, on the other hand, suggests that families who fall in that don't-qualify-for-Medicaid-but-can't-afford-regular-premiums (a.k.a. me and a lot of other working and middle class folks) qualify for GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED payment of premiums based on income. In other words, if you can't pay the premiums, based on your income, the government helps you out now by paying for it. Given, this is a far cry from my ideal of socialized health care, but I think it's a step in the right direction. If you can't pay, the government helps you then and there instead of next April. As I read through Obama's health care plan, I was impressed by his goals of taking pharmacorps and HMOs to task, as well as his commitments to HIV education and prevention. Admittedly, these are painted in broad strokes, for which I know some of you will criticize him. But I still feel like Obama better represents what I'm hoping from health care reform. Clinton may be more specific about her ideas, but I don't feel they substantially address the problem or help families with their immediate health care crises. Obama's plan requires a little more work on behalf of our government, but his plan directly addresses what's going on with families now.

So that's it. I'm voting for Obama. That's still doesn't get those of you Hillary-haters off the hook for jokes about pantsuits and PMS, though.

Editorial

Hillary is out of it!

by Roland Madore

Ann Coulter is in the gutter...and worse than Hillary, so I can't believe in anything Coulter says or does. Regarding, John McCain and Hillary? They're the past, although their association with failed policiies, and the damage they've caused, will affect us well into our future. Talk about guilt by association, the Bush-McCain war in Iraq is on Hillary's shoulders, along with plenty Democrats too.

Moreover, I believe Hillary will never regain momentum in the race with Barack Obama, and I say "Hooray!" The Clinton Machine math is all off and so 20th century. Hillary and Bill have also been just too damn dismissive of all those little caucus and primary states. Hillary herself couldn’t even thank all those who voted for her in Virgina, Maryland, and D.C. before she darted off to El Paso, TX. Then, rather than congratulate Barack Obama for his wins, as all second-place candidates always do, NOT EVEN AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of anything?!? How rude!

Their entire attitude about all this makes them real losers in my book. Rather than just relying on the so-called big states and super delegates, they need to do the new 21st century math of Barack Obama. And, with all due respect, another lesson of this election cycle I hope Hillary supporters especially learn is that not only do we deserve the government we get, but also, part of the individual responsibility of citizens in a participatory democracy is to educate themselves on the important issues of our day rather than follow blindly as the lazy zombies we’ve become. As an English teacher, I always preached this to my students: “If you don’t think for yourselves, there’s always someone else who will do it for you.” Again, wake up, America! Not just the Bush family, but the Clintons are also messing with your minds. At least, John McCain is a national hero, and he deserve our sincere gratitude. But he's an old soldier, who should not die; but at least, fade away.

In truth, this is another time in American history when we need the hope and inspiration Barack Obama offers. His campaign is our wake-up call, an America movement built on a vision of the country we will become if we can rise above the old politics that parses us into separate groups and puts us as odds with one another. As a born-again boomer for Obama, a newly-retired teacher with 35 years of service to our nation’s kids, a parent, and a grandparent, I do not believe Hillary Clinton is the solution to our problems. Instead, she is part of the problem.

Only Barack Obama has the best set of skills to unify this country, rally the Congress to work together to bring about real change in all segments of our daily lives, and lead this country in a new direction with the right moral compass to change hearts here at home and all over the world.

Roland Madore
Fort Collins, CO
Born-again boomer for Obama

Editorial

Let's turn the page with Obama

By Roland Madore

I voted for President Bill Clinton twice, but as a boomer for Obama in this election, I’m hoping we can turn the page on the Bush-Clinton dynasties and move ahead with the 21st century leadership of Barack Obama because America deserves it.

In a Virginia stump speech yesterday, Hillary said: "When the cameras are gone and lights are out and the crowds have gone home, the president is alone in that Oval Office trying to make the best decisions about the most difficult issues confronting us in the world and as we go forward in this campaign, I want people to ask themselves two basic questions, because this is really what it comes down to: Who do you believe would be the best president for you, your family, your future?" She continued: "But then for us who are Democrats, we also have to ask who can win, who can go the distance?" she said, repeating the argument that she was best equipped to face the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain when it comes to national security and other issues.

When she talks about the president being alone in that Oval Office, I cringe. Both she and Bill were there already and betrayed the trust of the American people. The facts—and they can hurt—as I remember sadly, were that Bill was not always alone in that Oval Office. He had Monica Lewinsky there with him and together they defiled the People’s House. The Republicans will bring this up, but they don’t need to if we move forward with Barack Obama as our nominee. To answer Hillary’s first question then, “No, I sincerely don’t believe you would be the best president for me, my family, or my future. And it has nothing to do with hate; it’s about hope!”

And as Democrats, we should really be asking: “Who deserves to win?” Hillary asks her second question predicated on the wrong premise. Sure, Hillary could go the distance with John McCain when it comes to national security and other issues. But will she be heard over all the anti-Clinton, spewed venom coming from the far right? Plus, with either John McCain or Hillary Clinton, the nation loses and nobody wins. It would be the most expensive, slime-filled contest ever—backward, not forward—featuring his past vs. her past with those two—and bridges to nowhere, in large measure, because of their stands on the Iraq war. I say “No” to Hillary here too because I want to move forward. Our nation’s future and real security rests on the shoulders of Barack Obama ecause the Bush-Clinton dynasties represent too much that is bad with America. Again, we must turn the page to 21st century leadership with Barack Obama. It’s time, and more of the People demand it.

Roland Madore, Fort Collins, CO
Boomer for Obama
Retired teacher with 35 years service
Parent
Grandparent

Editorial

We deserve the government we get!

By Roland Madore

We deserve the government we get. I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: America, you need to wake up then wise up to today’s realities. For the first time ever, young voters are united en masse and working for the election of Barack Obama. Why? They see and feel what their past has been under the Bush-Clinton dynasties and, hoping for the brightest of futures, they’re working hard to achieve real change with Barack Obama.

Having taught the nation’s youth here in Colorado for 35 years, I often unfairly viewed our nation’s youth—13-year-olds—as counter culture, lazy, self-centered, and uncaring. What a remarkable transformation can take place between the ages of 13 and 18! As a boomer and early supporter of Barack Obama and his vision for America, I’ve witnessed first hand the organization, conviction, and hard work of this block of young voters, and I am proud to be working hard alongside them.

Let’s review, do a little reality check—by no means complete—as to why they’re onboard for Obama in this election cycle. We’re in a war we didn’t need, we have a President who lied to get us there, and Republicans and many Democrats—like Hillary--gave this President a free reign to do whatever he wanted. Further, this Administration and the Republicans can talk about lowering taxes and federal spending, yet they charged billions and our future on a big fat Chinese charge card. Ironically, we pay our short term expenses by borrowing from China to pay for Middle East oil and, day by day, our economy sucks worse, and our reputation in the world sucks the worst, while fat-cat corporations and lobbyists benefit. And what about us, We, the People? As a boomer, I’m not happy at all, and I’m certainly not looking forward to replacing one liar—George Bush, who’s all but defecated on our Constitution—with two—Hillary and Bill Clinton and a co-presidency. Young people may not know the full history of the Clintons, but I do. And if Hillary chose to stand by her man as he messed up the White House with Monica Lewinsky—I guess that’s fine, but I don’t want to re-live that past. This election IS about the vote on the Iraq war, and it IS about the economy, but it IS also about judgment and character and the past vs. the future and who can best unite and lead this country out of the muck and mire.

Although I would vote for Hillary were she our nominee, there is no need to. We don’t need to build another bridge to the past, and we don’t need the division anymore—the old math of the 20th century no longer adds up. And we no longer need to hold our noses when we cast our vote. Let’s do the new math of the 21st century. Listen to the youth this time, America. They have it right. No longer are they just content to “fight for their right to party;” they are now fired up and in the lead for a new, promising, and brighter future with Barack Obama, and I stand with them.

One of my favorite poets reminds us now more than ever: “Do not go gentle into that good night, old age should burn and rave at close of day; rage, rage against the dying of the light.” --Dylan Thomas

Roland Madore, Fort Collins, CO
Boomer for Obama
Retired teacher of 35 years
Parent
Grandparent

Editorial

Asians for Clinton?

By Christopher Fung, Ph.D.

I don't think it will be news to anyone who knows me that I found this latest op-ed piece by Joan Walsh at Salon in which she tries to make sense of "Asian" support for Hillary Rodham Clinton more than somewhat frustrating.

Ms. Walsh has shown an annoying tendency to jump immediately to simplistic notions of race, class and/or gender in order to bring some sort of taxanomic order to what is actually a relatively complex array of factors used by voters to select the candidate of their choice.

Her discussion of "Asians" is a case in point. As with the rest of the punditocracy (interestingly, Walsh does not seem to believe she is a part of this group), Walsh engages in lazy generalizations which I believe end up obscuring more than they illuminate. As someone who has studied Asian diaspora cultures professionally for almost two decades, I’d like to make a number of points.

The first issue that needs to be remembered is that the people being interviewed are registered Democratic party voters. Many of the people who are active enough to vote in the primaries are people who are involved in Democratic Party politics or who have been mobilized by friends who are active in Democratic Party politics. As I have said before in this blog, Asians and Latinos inside the Democratic Party are much more likely to vote the establishment party line. And let us remember some of the people who are the Democratic Party establishment in California: Dianne Feinstein, who is often referred to as a quasi-Republican, Nancy Pelosi who has given the Republicans everything they want even though they are no longer the majority in the House, and the Orange County mafia who are similarly pro-business and pro government. Now granted, there's also Barbara Boxer, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, but the overwhelming majority of the California delegation are much less radical than the reputation of the state as "liberal" California would have us believe.

The party line in California is thus establishment and therefore overwhelmingly pro-Hillary. It is no accident that the states Obama took handily are those which have not been considered to be Democratic strongholds. The Democratic party power structures in these states are likely to be much more flexible and perhaps responsive to change since they have relatively little to lose compared to their dinosaur sister chapters in the Democratic heartland.

The second issue is that of generation and orientation. Those Asians who either are immigrants themselves or who identify politically and socially with their immigrant parents or grandparents are likely to be relatively conservative - not politically conservative but conservative in the sense that they want to be part of a large, powerful organization with which they have an established relationship and some history of mutual benefit. By contrast, third and fourth generation Asian immigrants, those young Asian Americans who see themselves as entitled to full citizenship in a cultural sense, and those with strong ties to other communities of color tend to be more excited by the idea of transformational politics and the kind of true polyculturalism that the Obama campaign represents.

Hillary Clinton's faction embodies the qualities sought by the immigrant-identified to a T.

The third issue I would like to point out (a trifle wearily), is that to make a big deal out of "Asians" political choices is to overstate the political importance of Asians as a group. Nowhere except in Hawai`i do Asian Americans constitute an electorally-decisive population in terms of numbers. There are select districts particularly in the LA area and the Bay Area where this is so, but in general terms Asian Americans are not in the same league as Latino voters in the southwest or African American voters in the southeast.

Ms. Walsh has confused the politics of establishment with the politics of race. In this she does nothing more than prove that she doesn't really understand the groups she blogs about with such apparent authority.

A Hudson Valley activist speaks about his experiences with Hillary...

Why I can't vote for Hillary

By Sam Pratt, Founder - Friends of Hudson

When it comes to Hillary Clinton, there is no shortage of unfair and
unprincipled reasons for disliking her -- and if you listen to AM talk
radio for an hour, you'll probably hear them all.

I reject the sexism of those who still think a former First Lady has
no place in policy debates, just as I reject the absurd theories of
those who think she had a hand in the death of her close friend Vince
Foster.

Having volunteered on Clinton's first senate campaign, I get mad when
I hear Rush Limbaugh savage her as a liar and an opportunist. I'm also
grateful to her for keeping Rudy Guiliani and Rick Lazio out of the
Senate.

But you don't have to be a sexist or a conspiracy theorist to oppose
Clinton's candidacy.

I don't dislike Hillary; I distrust her. And my reasons are both
substantive, and based on direct personal experience. When a major
issue hit the Hudson Valley, Clinton was less than honest with her
constituents, and all to eager to take credit where none was due.

For nearly 7 years, our communities were riven with controversy about
a vast, coal-burning facility proposed by St. Lawrence Cement here in
the Hudson Valley.

Given the harsh health, scenic, noise, traffic, economic and other
negative potential impacts, opponents naturally wanted to get the ear
of Mrs. Clinton -- and we tried everything. She was approached at
campaign whistlestops, at private dinners, and public fundraisers.
Printed factsheets were pressed into staffers' hands, and handwritten
letters beseeched our new Senator to help end this dangerous idea. But
she refused to take any public stand.

Finally, as the leader of the grassroots opposition, I tried an old-
fashioned political route. A friend identified a celebrity donor in
nearby Dutchess County who was opposed to St. Lawrence's plans, and he
called in a big favor. Driving to the capitol in his limo, we met with
Hillary first in a chamber outside the Armed Services Committee, then
took a long walk and tram ride under the Capitol to her offices.
Hillary was both charming, and surprisingly well-informed on our issue.

At last, here was my big chance to make a full case for her involvement.

But when I launched into a carefully-prepared spiel, the Senator
stopped me: "You don't need to do the presentation," she said. "The
plant is a terrible idea. Just tell me how I can help." Delighted, I
described the various Federal permitting processes in which she could
intervene, and the benefits of her taking a public stand.

She called in her chief environmental policy advisor, and gave
detailed instructions: Get a memo on her desk right away, listing the
necessary action steps and the policy rationales for each, and she'd
get right to work on it. Her performance was smart and convincing, and
her celebrity backer and I practically floated down the Capitol steps
on the way out.

The rest was silence. After promptly delivering the requested memo, I
was never able to get her staff (let alone the Senator herself) to
discuss the issue again, let alone take action to stop the plant.

About a year later, Clinton was cornered on the SLC issue by an
interviewer from The National Trust for Historic Preservation, who
finally got her to say that she thought the proposal was "not the
right direction for the Hudson Valley." These remarks were published
in Preservation Magazine, which Clinton apparently thought no one
would read... because when we then alerted local media to her
statement, Clinton's staff denied the remarks and claimed she still
had not taken a position.

Only after nearly 14,000 residents and 40 groups wrote in opposition
to the Republican administration of George Pataki did this terrible
project get scrapped -- without any help from either of our Democratic
Senators.

But there was one more damning chapter in our Clinton saga.

After we won, the group I co-founded received an award at the Waldorf-
Astoria from the Preservation League of New York. During the award
ceremony, it was announced that there would be a video tribute from
someone who couldn't attend, but who wanted to pay her respects. Up on
a giant screen came Hillary Clinton, talking about how we'd all fought
such a good fight together.

Those of us who had been in the trenches for years looked at each
other in amazement. All the awful things people say about Hillary were
horribly validated: She didn't deliver on her promises, and then she
took credit for a victory achieved without her help.

Now, some friends say, "Come now, Sam -- all politicians are the same.
They tell you what you want to hear, and then do the opposite. Get
over it!" Others say, "Well, Hillary dropped the ball on that one, but
I still trust her on health care, education, abortion, the economy, et
cetera."

To these excuses I say: Other politicians from five states had the
guts to take a stand on an issue affecting hundreds of thousands of
downwind residents; why couldn't Clinton?

Why should we expect her to act differently the next time a major
regional controversy hits? If she won't stand up for the health of
children and the elderly, and won't expend any political capital to
save a broad swath of her own adopted State as its Senator, why should
we expect her to behave differently as President?

And why shouldn't I get behind another candidate who is just as strong
on core Democratic issues, such as Barack Obama -- whose campaign
overtly rejects this cynical brand of politics?

The whole experience brings to mind that phrase famously mangled by
our current President: Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame
on Hillary.

And that's why Senator Clinton doesn't have my vote on Super Tuesday.
She will almost certainly carry this State, but our votes can help
ensure that at least a portion of New York's delegates to the
Democratic convention are awarded to a more deserving candidate.


Ed: To make a reader happy, I am noting that this letter was forwarded directly to me by a volunteer for the Obama campaign in Columbia/Greene county, NY.
The letter was sent to him by Sam Pratt and he was given permission by Mr. Pratt to pass the letter along to as many people as possible.

It's Time For Progressive Bloggers To Choose A Candidate

Bob Cesca writes for The Huffington Post:

Last night's non-victory victory rally in Florida underscored everything that's awful and ridiculous about the Clinton-Clinton '08 style. They pledged not to campaign in Florida, yet they campaigned there anyway. The primary was unofficial and no delegates were counted, yet they celebrated with a televised victory rally anyway -- ostensibly to trick some casual viewers and supporters into thinking it was a meaningful win.

Imagine, if you will, the Patriots showing up at U of P Stadium tonight and declaring victory even though they've agreed -- "pledged" if you will -- to play against the Giants on Sunday. It's an easy way to declare victory, albeit equally as cheap, dishonest and artificial.

And to observe Senator Clinton's pledge to seat the Florida delegates while, at that very moment, violating a previous pledge, was to observe a Clintonian paradox in its pristine, natural habitat.

...

As such, it's absolutely astonishing that the Democratic race is as close as it is. If a Republican said something like "Jesse Jackson won here twice" or pledged to grab delegates that don't exist we'd be choking on our own tongues as we convulsed and gasped in shock-horror. There's no excuse for forgiving the Rovian games or the DLC calculation. Just because they're The Clintons doesn't make it forgivable. Up until the last two months, I've been an unwavering supporter of President Clinton. He's arguably the second or third greatest president of the 20th Century next to FDR and JFK and he's presently the Most Popular Living Ex-President In The World, but these past couple of months have been seriously painful.

So how has Senator Clinton lasted as long as she has given her campaign's fun & games? Well, for starters, it doesn't hurt that the Most Popular Living Ex-President In The World is serving as her de facto running mate -- using his position as the Most Popular Living Ex-President In The World to publicly rip Senator Obama every day during New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. (Speaking of which, it's worth noting that in New Hampshire Senator Obama came within three percentage points of both Senator Clinton and the Most Popular Living Ex-President In The World. Any other year, that would've been considered a huge win for Obama.)

(Full article)