In the democratic presidential primary, there are not just two candidates running for the nomination. There are two completely different arguments about how the winner should be decided.
I have been looking over some blogs this morning and it is apparent that those on Obama's side view the path to victory totally different than those favoring the Clinton campaign.
The Obama campaign has been working to pile up delegates according to the rules set down by the DNC. They are not just looking for state wins, they are looking for as many delegates as they can get within states, even states they lose (all of the states divide up their delegates according to weighted votes). They are not doing this (as far as I know) by cheating or demanding more than they have legitimately won, but by following the rules of the party. Because of the way the DNC rewards certain congressional districts within states, because of loyal democratic voting or other reasons, a candidate can actually win a state and lose the delegate count and vice versa. This may seem to the causal observer to be an unfair way to run a primary, but it is what the DNC laid down and what all the candidates knew going in. Obama is using the rules to his advantage.
Obama has also been trying to wrap up the contest by winning the most delegates, whether they come from caucus states or primary states. He does not see the delegates from caucus states as any less countable than delegates from primary states, nor it should be added does the DNC. Nor does he see the delegates from small states, or so-called red states, being any less important, as it is the overall delegate count that determines the winner.
Obama also wants to adhere to the rules laid down by the DNC regarding Florida and Michigan. The DNC, with the agreement of both campaigns, punished Florida and Michigan, as they said they would, because they moved their primary date up. Over the past couple of years, states have been moving their primaries up to an earlier date to have more of a say in who the nominee would be. My own state of California went from a June primary to a February primary for example.
My understanding is that the DNC was troubled by this development and we all saw Iowa and New Hampshire, who have traditionally been first, keep having to move their primaries up to stay in the first positions. The whole moving primary thing was getting ridiculous, so the DNC decided where the first four contests would be and asked all states to comply. When Florida and Michigan defied them, the DNC said they would not seat their delegates. This isn't because they didn't value the voters of Florida and Michigan, but because they were trying to put a halt to this "me first" contest in all the states and avoid fiascos in upcoming election years.
When the DNC made this decision, all the candidates were on board. All of the candidates (except Clinton and Dodd) took their names off of the ballot in Michigan, but Florida didn't allow that, so all the names remained. Furthermore, the candidates agreed not to campaign in these states. Obama has agreed to abide by the DNC's decision, although he says he would like to find a compromise by which the delegations could be seated.
Finally there are the superdelegates, those party officials who can also cast one delegate vote and possibly determine the winner of the nomination regardless of who wins the most pledged delegates. Obama has been trying to woo superdelegates as much as Clinton, and he is very aware that the superdelegates could vote for any candidate, including the one with the least pledged delegates. So far, he has not said anything publicly about wanting the superdelegates to abide by the will of the people, although some members of the party have said that.
In summary, then, Obama is moving forward trying to win as many delegates, pledged and super, as possible in order to secure the nomination. He is adhering to the rules, even though some believe those rules are unfair. So far, that strategy has served him well, so it is not difficult to stick to it. Obama is consistent. His message is trustworthy.
Hillary Clinton, who is currently behind in total delegate count, and most especially in the pledged delegates (those won in primaries and caucuses) has a very different strategy which operates on two fronts. One is to discount Obama's victories. The other is to emphasize "fairness." In neither of these fronts is she concerned about adhering to DNC rules.
Hillary and her surrogates have been discounting Obama's victories since he began winning them. In fact, this has become so obvious that some of the bloggers are writing parodies of her surrogates' attempts to downplay Obama's wins. So far, we have heard from Hillary's campaign that small state delegates aren't as important as big state delegates, red state delegates aren't as valuable as blue state delegates, and caucus delegates aren't as democratic as primary delegates. In other words, the delegates Hillary has won should count more than the delegates Obama has won. Of course, since the party rules are that a delegate is a delegate is a delegate, this is all spin and will make no difference in the final count.
What could make a difference in the final count is what what happens with the Michigan and Florida votes, and what the superdelegates ultimately do. Here again, Hillary has a different strategy.
While Hillary originally accepted the DNC rules regarding Michigan and Florida, she now talks about the "unfairness" of not seating the delegations. Since she "won" both contests, even though she was running against "uncommitted" in Michigan, and even though Obama had no chance to introduce himself to the voters in Florida, she now wants to change the rules in mid-game. There is a certain appeal to her argument, especially when she claims it is unfair to the voters of Michigan and Florida not to count their votes, but she is not looking at all at the fact that it was unfair to Obama not to be on the ballot in Michigan, and not to be able to campaign in Florida, where had he campaigned he undoubtedly would have done better. Her argument also makes sense in terms of giving her an advantage. Since she won both contests, however unfairly, she wants those delegates and the only way to get them is to convince enough people her "fairness" argument is valid and the DNC rules should be overturned.
As to the superdelegates, Hillary is counting on them overturning and thus dishonoring the popular and pledged delegate votes (which is an ironic twist considering her cry that the votes in Florida and Michigan should be honored). She hopes that by winning Pennsylvania and many of the remaining states, she will prove she has momentum and will be a better candidate than Obama. The only problem with this is that there is nothing in the rules about momentum. Yes, if the Obama campaign implodes, for which the Clinton campaign is praying, the superdelegates can be a safeguard to vote for a better candidate, but this would be extraordinary and could tear the party apart.
The superdelegates would only overrule the will of the people who have given Obama more votes, and put Hillary in as the nominee, if they really believed Obama was radioactive. Right now, in opinion polls, Hillary has higher negatives than Obama or McCain, and is seen as the least likely to unify the country. So all she may have going for her is momentum, Michigan, and Florida and they are all long shots. In addition, Hillary's mind-changing with respect to the DNC rules makes her look untrustworthy and inconsistent, as does her dishonest story about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.
A presidential election campaign is really two things: a deadly serious business in which candidates' character, demeanor, leadership, and position on issues is evaluated, and a strategic game in which one side tries to outmaneuver the other with a variety of tactics and tricks.
Ronald Reagan was the last candidate who won on the first set of criteria. His character, personality, leadership style and conservative views (during a very conservative time) won the day. Since then, while Democratic candidates have generally had better positions on issues, candidates have either prevailed because of personality issues or through the use of tactics and (mostly dirty) tricks.
Bush I won because of dirty tricks against Dukakis while Bill Clinton won because of a combination of personality and Perot, who stole enough votes from Bush I to allow Clinton to win with less than 50% of the vote. Bush II won as we all know because of the dirty campaing and electoral tricks of Karl Rove.
This election, however, may be different. These are different times. The problems the country faces are enormous, and the man who became president because of dirty tricks has not only failed to solve them, he has created more of them. This time, a reliance on strategy alone may not work. The people are treating the presidential election of 2008 as deadly serious business and are in no mood, I believe, for another Rovian election season.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not very different when it comes to issues, however, so Hillary is trying to win with tricks and tactics while Obama, no novice when it comes to smart tactics, is playing by the rules and emphasizing character, leadership, and demeanor. After he nearly got thrown off course by the Rev. Wright controversy, he came back with a speech in which his loyalty, his honesty, and his calm demeanor won the day. People admired his courage in addressing a hot topic, and in not completely disowning his pastor. They liked his ability to talk in more than sound bites, to address them as adults, and to look at issues in a complex rather than simplistic good and evil way. After eight years of lies, overly simplistic arguments, and dirty tricks, the people find Obama refreshing, and too many are seeing Hillary Clinton as untrustworthy.
Even the choice of the Republican nominee is a testament to the fact that people have Bush and Rove fatigue and want more honesty, more character, and less dirty tricks. McCain, the so-called Maverick, is ahead in the polls right now, beating both Obama and Clinton, even though the people are clearly on the side of both Obama and Clinton when it comes to the issues. The people like McCain's demeanor and character, and the Republicans nominated him even though the so-called conservative base does not embrace him.
Ultimately, I think Clinton's tactics will not work. While her supporters have accepted and even promoted her rationalizations that the Michigan and Florida situation is unfair to voters, and that she is a better candidate because she wins in large blue states this is not accepted by a majority of voters. The voters know she signed on to the DNC rules and they also know that in large states like California, New York and Massachusetts, Barack Obama will defeat John McCain. Clinton wants to use a Bush-Rove strategy, winning by tactics and rhetorical tricks, and the voters who are not among her most loyal fans do not like it.
This is why today Obama is ahead of Clinton by 10 points, and it is why, once Obama is the official nominee and is pitted one on one against McCain, McCain's numbers will go down. And the sooner that happens, the better.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Hillary and the third stage of grief
One way to look at Hillary's refusal to concede to Obama, and her determination to fight on even though she has no real chance of getting the nomination, is through the prism of grief.
As Elizabeth Kubler-Ross taught us several decades ago, grief is a process that involves several stages, each of which can overlap with the others and occur in any order.
The stages include denial, anger, bargaining, sadness or depression, and finally resolution.
When this campaign season began, Hillary thought the nomination would easily be hers. Her strategy was to wrap things up by Super Tuesday (in early February) and glide to the convention in August as the queen-in-waiting. None of the candidates could pose a real threat to her, she thought. Then Obama's candidacy caught fire, and he won 11 contests in a row, soaring to a lead of 150 delegates. Since then, she has been unable to narrow that gap, even with wins in Texas and Ohio.
Although the final act has not been played, and we do not know for sure that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton has in front of her a stark reality: Obama is favored to win. So her long held dream of being the first woman president is dying. Hence, the grief analogy.
At first, Hillary was in denial. There was no way this upstart could defeat her. Her loss in the first caucus in Iowa was merely a blip, a mistake, erased by her victory in New Hampshire. Then she won Nevada and all seemed on track, until South Carolina showed her that she was losing the African American vote. This would be disastrous for her, so while on the outside she and her husband continued to deny reality, underneath there was anger. This was most obvious in Bill Clinton's behavior: yelling at reporters and making subtle racist comments: calling Obama's record on the Iraq War "a fairy tale" and comparing his win to that of Jesse Jackson.
While Hillary, Bill and their supporters are still in some denial, and still allow their anger to break through from time to time, they have entered the third stage of grief: bargaining. Thus we hear all kinds of scenarios by which they expect to win: the superdelegates must deny Obama the nomination because he is too flawed or because she won the big states, the blue states, or the most populous states; Florida and Michigan must have their votes counted even though they violated the rules which would disallow those votes; pledged delegates must follow their own conscience and not the will of the people who sent them to the convention. Now, some of Hillary's big donors have sent a threatening letter to Nancy Pelosi, demanding that she tell superdelegates to vote their conscience or they will take their ball and bat and go home. This is bargaining at its most brutal, and it is all because at some unconscious level, Hillary and her supporters know the truth: her campaign is dying, her dreams are dying, her hopes are dying.
Bargaining is all they have left. Denial no longer works and anger is counterproductive. Bargaining is all that keeps them from falling into the abyss of sadness and depression. So in that respect it makes a certain kind of sense, even though it is destructive.
I don't think it will be too long before Hillary and Co. will have to give up the bargaining and accept the inevitable sadness and grief that follows. It will be tough to take, tough to endure, and tough to go on when the dream dies. But the one good thing about grief is that over time there is resolution. The person who must grieve learns to live with the pain, and even create something new and positive from it. Look at Jimmy Carter's amazing humanitarian work, begun only after he lost a bid for his second term.
Hillary can do enormous good once she allows herself to experience the pain of her loss, once she acknowledges that she is not the only person in this country who could be a great president. Once she accepts that Obama is going to be the nominee, once she allows herself to see how great he could be with enough support and help from people like her and her husband, she will be at peace.
Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman and can continue on as a great senator or even governor if that is what she chooses. She can join her husband in his philanthropic work, start a think tank or even accept a cabinet position in an Obama administration. Letting go is painful, difficult, maybe even excruciating, but once one is courageous and gracious enough to do it, and to not go down a road of bitterness, much good can come of it.
Hillary can postpone the fourth stage of grief for a long time, but doing so will hurt the party and the eventual nominee. It will also hurt her. It's time for her to face the inevitable, allow herself some time to heal and throw her support behind an amazing candidate. Only then will she achieve true resolution and true statesmanship. She still has a tremendous role to play in electing our next president and contributing to our country, but first she has to move past the bargaining stage so she can finish the work of grieving.
As Elizabeth Kubler-Ross taught us several decades ago, grief is a process that involves several stages, each of which can overlap with the others and occur in any order.
The stages include denial, anger, bargaining, sadness or depression, and finally resolution.
When this campaign season began, Hillary thought the nomination would easily be hers. Her strategy was to wrap things up by Super Tuesday (in early February) and glide to the convention in August as the queen-in-waiting. None of the candidates could pose a real threat to her, she thought. Then Obama's candidacy caught fire, and he won 11 contests in a row, soaring to a lead of 150 delegates. Since then, she has been unable to narrow that gap, even with wins in Texas and Ohio.
Although the final act has not been played, and we do not know for sure that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton has in front of her a stark reality: Obama is favored to win. So her long held dream of being the first woman president is dying. Hence, the grief analogy.
At first, Hillary was in denial. There was no way this upstart could defeat her. Her loss in the first caucus in Iowa was merely a blip, a mistake, erased by her victory in New Hampshire. Then she won Nevada and all seemed on track, until South Carolina showed her that she was losing the African American vote. This would be disastrous for her, so while on the outside she and her husband continued to deny reality, underneath there was anger. This was most obvious in Bill Clinton's behavior: yelling at reporters and making subtle racist comments: calling Obama's record on the Iraq War "a fairy tale" and comparing his win to that of Jesse Jackson.
While Hillary, Bill and their supporters are still in some denial, and still allow their anger to break through from time to time, they have entered the third stage of grief: bargaining. Thus we hear all kinds of scenarios by which they expect to win: the superdelegates must deny Obama the nomination because he is too flawed or because she won the big states, the blue states, or the most populous states; Florida and Michigan must have their votes counted even though they violated the rules which would disallow those votes; pledged delegates must follow their own conscience and not the will of the people who sent them to the convention. Now, some of Hillary's big donors have sent a threatening letter to Nancy Pelosi, demanding that she tell superdelegates to vote their conscience or they will take their ball and bat and go home. This is bargaining at its most brutal, and it is all because at some unconscious level, Hillary and her supporters know the truth: her campaign is dying, her dreams are dying, her hopes are dying.
Bargaining is all they have left. Denial no longer works and anger is counterproductive. Bargaining is all that keeps them from falling into the abyss of sadness and depression. So in that respect it makes a certain kind of sense, even though it is destructive.
I don't think it will be too long before Hillary and Co. will have to give up the bargaining and accept the inevitable sadness and grief that follows. It will be tough to take, tough to endure, and tough to go on when the dream dies. But the one good thing about grief is that over time there is resolution. The person who must grieve learns to live with the pain, and even create something new and positive from it. Look at Jimmy Carter's amazing humanitarian work, begun only after he lost a bid for his second term.
Hillary can do enormous good once she allows herself to experience the pain of her loss, once she acknowledges that she is not the only person in this country who could be a great president. Once she accepts that Obama is going to be the nominee, once she allows herself to see how great he could be with enough support and help from people like her and her husband, she will be at peace.
Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman and can continue on as a great senator or even governor if that is what she chooses. She can join her husband in his philanthropic work, start a think tank or even accept a cabinet position in an Obama administration. Letting go is painful, difficult, maybe even excruciating, but once one is courageous and gracious enough to do it, and to not go down a road of bitterness, much good can come of it.
Hillary can postpone the fourth stage of grief for a long time, but doing so will hurt the party and the eventual nominee. It will also hurt her. It's time for her to face the inevitable, allow herself some time to heal and throw her support behind an amazing candidate. Only then will she achieve true resolution and true statesmanship. She still has a tremendous role to play in electing our next president and contributing to our country, but first she has to move past the bargaining stage so she can finish the work of grieving.
Medicine and prayer
My husband comes from a very religious family. They are fervent believers in prayer.
However, they are also fervent believers in medicine. Several family members have suffered serious illnesses over the past decade and in each case, while they prayed fervently for healing as well as courage, they wasted no time in seeking medical help to treat their conditions. They are all doing well now, having been the recipients of some of the most advanced medical treatments available.
I can't imagine any of them ever believing that prayer alone would cure or successfully manage their illnesses. They believe that medicine is part of God's world and is there for all of us to utilize.
Once again, though, we read the story of a family that refused medical treatment for a child because of their belief that God alone would provide a cure. An eleven year old girl is dead today because instead of seeking treatment for their daughter's highly treatable diabetes, a family chose to stay home and pray for direct divine intervention.
How sad it is to me that any parent could put any belief – religious or otherwise - over the well being of their own child. And how foolish it is for anyone to believe that God only works through direct intervention as a result of someone's prayers, rather than indirectly through medicine.
Are some people really so naïve that they can't see that all medicine is the result of discoveries made by the very human beings, with the very exceptional brains, that they also believe were made by God? Do these believers think that human beings were all put here to live in isolation and not help each other with scientific and medical advances?
I have never seen a contradiction between religion and science, between prayer and medicine, or between the possibility that God created the world and the probability that he did it slowly, through evolution. But others, apparently, insist on creating that divide, even when the consequences are deadly.
How about this for a possibility? What if God created the world, and specifically created intelligent human beings to preserve creation, make the world a better place, manage resources, provide for the needs of all the creatures on the earth, heal illness, mediate disputes and create a prosperous and peaceful planet? What if he did this so that humans would turn to each other for solutions rather than expect him to intervene individually in each isolated case? If this was indeed God's plan, then human beings who reject that plan are really rejecting God.
Whatever the theology, I think it is time we hold parents like these criminally responsible for the unnecessary deaths of their children. If a parent had a chance to stop a child from running into the street and stood by and simply prayed that the child would stay put, and then that child was run over by a car, we would hold the parent responsible. This seems no different to me.
Prayer can be a great comfort, and an adjunct to medicine, but it is both stubborn and stupid, in my opinion, for any parent to believe that when simple medical care is available to save their child's life, they reject that medical care and expect God to intervene directly in their child's condition. It seems to me God already answered their prayers when he created human beings who developed life saving medicine. To insist that God save your child the way you want them saved, and not in the way that is already provided, is the height of arrogance.
However, they are also fervent believers in medicine. Several family members have suffered serious illnesses over the past decade and in each case, while they prayed fervently for healing as well as courage, they wasted no time in seeking medical help to treat their conditions. They are all doing well now, having been the recipients of some of the most advanced medical treatments available.
I can't imagine any of them ever believing that prayer alone would cure or successfully manage their illnesses. They believe that medicine is part of God's world and is there for all of us to utilize.
Once again, though, we read the story of a family that refused medical treatment for a child because of their belief that God alone would provide a cure. An eleven year old girl is dead today because instead of seeking treatment for their daughter's highly treatable diabetes, a family chose to stay home and pray for direct divine intervention.
How sad it is to me that any parent could put any belief – religious or otherwise - over the well being of their own child. And how foolish it is for anyone to believe that God only works through direct intervention as a result of someone's prayers, rather than indirectly through medicine.
Are some people really so naïve that they can't see that all medicine is the result of discoveries made by the very human beings, with the very exceptional brains, that they also believe were made by God? Do these believers think that human beings were all put here to live in isolation and not help each other with scientific and medical advances?
I have never seen a contradiction between religion and science, between prayer and medicine, or between the possibility that God created the world and the probability that he did it slowly, through evolution. But others, apparently, insist on creating that divide, even when the consequences are deadly.
How about this for a possibility? What if God created the world, and specifically created intelligent human beings to preserve creation, make the world a better place, manage resources, provide for the needs of all the creatures on the earth, heal illness, mediate disputes and create a prosperous and peaceful planet? What if he did this so that humans would turn to each other for solutions rather than expect him to intervene individually in each isolated case? If this was indeed God's plan, then human beings who reject that plan are really rejecting God.
Whatever the theology, I think it is time we hold parents like these criminally responsible for the unnecessary deaths of their children. If a parent had a chance to stop a child from running into the street and stood by and simply prayed that the child would stay put, and then that child was run over by a car, we would hold the parent responsible. This seems no different to me.
Prayer can be a great comfort, and an adjunct to medicine, but it is both stubborn and stupid, in my opinion, for any parent to believe that when simple medical care is available to save their child's life, they reject that medical care and expect God to intervene directly in their child's condition. It seems to me God already answered their prayers when he created human beings who developed life saving medicine. To insist that God save your child the way you want them saved, and not in the way that is already provided, is the height of arrogance.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Hillary's true believers
If it's true, as Josh Marshall tells us, that "the new Gallup poll says that 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Hillary and a whopping 28% of Hillary supporters would abandon Obama for McCain," then we have a bigger problem with race than we do with gender.
This would seem to contradict George McGovern's claim that it would be easier to elect an African American man than a woman.
Or is it possible that some of those "Hillary supporters" were never really supporters, just Republicans who are causing mischief, some of whom may have voted for her in the primary, at Rush Limbaugh's suggestion?
If, on the other hand, these are true "Hillary supporters," then that tells me that Hillary supporters are far less loyal to the Democratic Party than are Obama supporters, and believe their candidate is entitled to the nomination, regardless of the poll numbers, delegates won, and the popular vote count, all of which put Obama in the lead. It also tells me that the Republican Party isn't the only party with a race problem.
That said, I don't think these numbers will hold up. When Obama is the nominee, either Hillary will support him, bringing her supporters with her to support the party nominee, or she will not support him, and continue to indicate McCain would make a better commander in chief, proving her to be a narcissistic, poor loser that she has recently appeared to be.
Furthermore, everywhere Obama has a chance to meet voters, his poll numbers go up. As the country finds out what a truly visionary and talented candidate he is, he will win them over. And as the flawed candidate McCain becomes unacceptable to the majority of Americans, no Democrat will vote for him. They may stay home. They may not vote for anyone for president, but they will not cast a ballot for McCain, the candidate who wants to continue the "You're on your own society."
So I'm not worried about what will happen in November, but I think this poll is informative in that it shows us some problems with a large number of Hillary Clinton supporters.
This would seem to contradict George McGovern's claim that it would be easier to elect an African American man than a woman.
Or is it possible that some of those "Hillary supporters" were never really supporters, just Republicans who are causing mischief, some of whom may have voted for her in the primary, at Rush Limbaugh's suggestion?
If, on the other hand, these are true "Hillary supporters," then that tells me that Hillary supporters are far less loyal to the Democratic Party than are Obama supporters, and believe their candidate is entitled to the nomination, regardless of the poll numbers, delegates won, and the popular vote count, all of which put Obama in the lead. It also tells me that the Republican Party isn't the only party with a race problem.
That said, I don't think these numbers will hold up. When Obama is the nominee, either Hillary will support him, bringing her supporters with her to support the party nominee, or she will not support him, and continue to indicate McCain would make a better commander in chief, proving her to be a narcissistic, poor loser that she has recently appeared to be.
Furthermore, everywhere Obama has a chance to meet voters, his poll numbers go up. As the country finds out what a truly visionary and talented candidate he is, he will win them over. And as the flawed candidate McCain becomes unacceptable to the majority of Americans, no Democrat will vote for him. They may stay home. They may not vote for anyone for president, but they will not cast a ballot for McCain, the candidate who wants to continue the "You're on your own society."
So I'm not worried about what will happen in November, but I think this poll is informative in that it shows us some problems with a large number of Hillary Clinton supporters.
A question for mothers
Here are a few questions every mother who also supports Hillary Clinton should ask:
If that infamous trip to Bosnia was as dangerous as Hillary Clinton claimed it was, and if she knew that ahead of time, as she claims she did, why on earth did she take her only child with her?
If there was indeed sniper fire as they landed, and sniper fire when they walked out onto the tarmac, why did she stop and greet an eight year old girl? Why did she not insist she and her daughter stay on the plane or return to the plane so that the pilot could fly them out immediately?
What kind of a mother takes her only child into a war zone and risks her life?
Is this good judgment?
If this is how Hillary treats her daughter, how will she treat the rest of us?
If this is an example of Hillary's honesty, what can we expect if she becomes president?
If that infamous trip to Bosnia was as dangerous as Hillary Clinton claimed it was, and if she knew that ahead of time, as she claims she did, why on earth did she take her only child with her?
If there was indeed sniper fire as they landed, and sniper fire when they walked out onto the tarmac, why did she stop and greet an eight year old girl? Why did she not insist she and her daughter stay on the plane or return to the plane so that the pilot could fly them out immediately?
What kind of a mother takes her only child into a war zone and risks her life?
Is this good judgment?
If this is how Hillary treats her daughter, how will she treat the rest of us?
If this is an example of Hillary's honesty, what can we expect if she becomes president?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Just a thought...
As Gov. Bill Richardson endures James Carville's continuing accusations of disloyalty because of his endorsement of Barack Obama, one wonders just how many of Hillary Clinton's supporters are true supporters, and how many are supporting her because they know the viciousness of the Clintons and they feel they have no other choice.
Maybe all those super delegates supporting her are in self-protective mode rather than enthusiastic endorsement mode.
And one begins to understand why Al Gore and John Edwards have not yet endorsed anyone.
Maybe all those super delegates supporting her are in self-protective mode rather than enthusiastic endorsement mode.
And one begins to understand why Al Gore and John Edwards have not yet endorsed anyone.
Another winning scenario for Hillary
Some days, when my irritation at Hillary Clinton's arrogance threatens to ruin my day, a little humor is a saving grace.
This post made me laugh out loud.
This post made me laugh out loud.
Off with his head! The continuing saga of America's royal families
One reason some of us are reluctant to support Hillary Clinton in this election season is that we do not want to annoint a second royal family in America.
Already we have annointed the Bushes, by having a father-son duo occupy the White House, with a brother-in-waiting (Jeb), and perhaps even a nephew (George P.) not far behind.
We know how that has turned out. We have seen the arrogance and sense of entitlement for nearly eight years, and no one can deny that by every possible measure the country is worse off today than it was eight years ago. Indeed it is immeasurably worse off.
To make the same mistake again, to put in office the wife of a former president and expect that to turn out well is a gamble many of us are not willing to take.
Already we see signs of entitlement in the Clinton campaign. Hillary acts like she and her husband are the royal court in exile, simply waiting to regain the throne, and willing to take down anyone in their way. They treat Obama as a fraud, a pretender to the throne. To them, this is not democracy, no matter how much they scream about counting the votes in Florida and Michigan. Had Obama won those contests, when they weren't supposed to count, Hillary's royal court would be insisting that rules are rules and must be obeyed.
Hillary's royal court has some creative ways of insisting she is the legitimate heir to the throne. Only big state wins count. Only blue state wins count. Only primaries - not caucuses - count. Only blue collar states count. Now, her husband says the primary season will not be legitimate unless Michigan and Florida count, even though the husband wife duo was all too willing to sign on to disallowing the votes of these two renegade states before they voted for Hillary.
The verbal footwork is awe-inspiring. The only explanation is that they feel the presidency is theirs by divine right. They don't honor democracy. By their behavior they show that they prefer a return to a feudal society, when those who opposed the king (or queen) were beheaded for treason.
That explains the stubbornness of James Carville in comparing Bill Richardson, a former Clinton cabinet member, to Judas, and suggesting he sold out his former boss for some promise of future employment. In not condemning Carville's statements, the Clintons have condoned them, and are making it clear that any member of the royal court who opposes them commits treason against them. In another time, if Richardson wanted to hold onto his head, he would have to go into hiding.
There are many problems with monarchies as any historian knows, and over 250 years ago, this land not only rejected the British monarchy, but monarchy itself, as it created a new form of government: representative democracy. George Washington voluntarily limited his time in office as he felt the president should not serve over eight years. Legal limits were ultimately placed on how long one president served, to ensure that the presidency does not become too powerful of an office, controlled by one person or one family.
The majority of voters in 2000 honored this tradition and did not want the son of a recent president to serve. Lest we forget, George W. Bush lost the popular vote and probably even lost the electoral vote, but was installed in office by the Supreme Court. And so, in spite of the will of the people, we have seen the development of one royal family and the entitlement and arrogance that this reality represents has been nothing but bad news for this nation.
We don't need another royal family. We don't need the Clintons changing the rules, creating their own realities, and sending out their henchmen to lop off heads.
We need new ideas, new faces, and new leaders to take us forward to deal with the new realities facing this nation and the world. We need someone who plays by the rules, who believes in democracy, who inspires and instills hope, and who will lead us, not command us nor threaten us.
We have such a candidate in Barack Obama. The power of his message and his leadership threatens the Clinton in ways they never expected. As a result we see them changing the rules, telling lies, smearing their opponent, and attacking anyone who supports him.
These are the actions of monarchs and would-be monarchs who claim their right to power is divinely ordained.
These are not the actions of people who claim to love democracy. These are not the actions of true democrats.
Already we have annointed the Bushes, by having a father-son duo occupy the White House, with a brother-in-waiting (Jeb), and perhaps even a nephew (George P.) not far behind.
We know how that has turned out. We have seen the arrogance and sense of entitlement for nearly eight years, and no one can deny that by every possible measure the country is worse off today than it was eight years ago. Indeed it is immeasurably worse off.
To make the same mistake again, to put in office the wife of a former president and expect that to turn out well is a gamble many of us are not willing to take.
Already we see signs of entitlement in the Clinton campaign. Hillary acts like she and her husband are the royal court in exile, simply waiting to regain the throne, and willing to take down anyone in their way. They treat Obama as a fraud, a pretender to the throne. To them, this is not democracy, no matter how much they scream about counting the votes in Florida and Michigan. Had Obama won those contests, when they weren't supposed to count, Hillary's royal court would be insisting that rules are rules and must be obeyed.
Hillary's royal court has some creative ways of insisting she is the legitimate heir to the throne. Only big state wins count. Only blue state wins count. Only primaries - not caucuses - count. Only blue collar states count. Now, her husband says the primary season will not be legitimate unless Michigan and Florida count, even though the husband wife duo was all too willing to sign on to disallowing the votes of these two renegade states before they voted for Hillary.
The verbal footwork is awe-inspiring. The only explanation is that they feel the presidency is theirs by divine right. They don't honor democracy. By their behavior they show that they prefer a return to a feudal society, when those who opposed the king (or queen) were beheaded for treason.
That explains the stubbornness of James Carville in comparing Bill Richardson, a former Clinton cabinet member, to Judas, and suggesting he sold out his former boss for some promise of future employment. In not condemning Carville's statements, the Clintons have condoned them, and are making it clear that any member of the royal court who opposes them commits treason against them. In another time, if Richardson wanted to hold onto his head, he would have to go into hiding.
There are many problems with monarchies as any historian knows, and over 250 years ago, this land not only rejected the British monarchy, but monarchy itself, as it created a new form of government: representative democracy. George Washington voluntarily limited his time in office as he felt the president should not serve over eight years. Legal limits were ultimately placed on how long one president served, to ensure that the presidency does not become too powerful of an office, controlled by one person or one family.
The majority of voters in 2000 honored this tradition and did not want the son of a recent president to serve. Lest we forget, George W. Bush lost the popular vote and probably even lost the electoral vote, but was installed in office by the Supreme Court. And so, in spite of the will of the people, we have seen the development of one royal family and the entitlement and arrogance that this reality represents has been nothing but bad news for this nation.
We don't need another royal family. We don't need the Clintons changing the rules, creating their own realities, and sending out their henchmen to lop off heads.
We need new ideas, new faces, and new leaders to take us forward to deal with the new realities facing this nation and the world. We need someone who plays by the rules, who believes in democracy, who inspires and instills hope, and who will lead us, not command us nor threaten us.
We have such a candidate in Barack Obama. The power of his message and his leadership threatens the Clinton in ways they never expected. As a result we see them changing the rules, telling lies, smearing their opponent, and attacking anyone who supports him.
These are the actions of monarchs and would-be monarchs who claim their right to power is divinely ordained.
These are not the actions of people who claim to love democracy. These are not the actions of true democrats.
Monday, March 24, 2008
It all depends on what the meaning of "Sniper Fire" is
Last week on at least two occasions Hillary Clinton said the following regarding a trip she took to Bosnia as First Lady:
“I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia. There was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”
Then, several youtube videos appeared contradicting Mrs. Clinton's remarks, showing her and her daughter being met at the airport by a greeting party that included a young girl who read a poem for her. There was no running with heads down, and indeed as good a mother as she seems to be I cannot imagine she would take Chelsea with her should she think she might be subjected to sniper fire.
Today the Clinton campaign said she "misspoke." These two - Bill and Hillary - really are two identical peas in a pod. But then I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "sniper fire" is.
“I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia. There was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”
Then, several youtube videos appeared contradicting Mrs. Clinton's remarks, showing her and her daughter being met at the airport by a greeting party that included a young girl who read a poem for her. There was no running with heads down, and indeed as good a mother as she seems to be I cannot imagine she would take Chelsea with her should she think she might be subjected to sniper fire.
Today the Clinton campaign said she "misspoke." These two - Bill and Hillary - really are two identical peas in a pod. But then I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "sniper fire" is.
Friday, March 21, 2008
She must be stopped
Hillary Clinton's strategy of "throwing everything but the kitchen sink" at Barack Obama in order to wound him, slow his momentum and convince superdelegates she is more electable was starting to have some effect, especially once the Rev. Wright flap erupted (with some secret help from the Clinton campaign perhaps?), but I suspect it will ultimately not work. There are some indications that the speech given by Obama slowed the bleeding, and now I am hearing and reading commentary that calls for us to chill, stop playing gotcha politics with Obama, and speak like grown-ups about race. I will cite some of that commentary in a later post. In this post I wish to speak personally about why I am so disappointed in and even disgusted by Hillary Clinton.
When the Clintons were under attack from the right wing and the media, before the 1992 election when the allegations of infidelity threatened to doom his candidacy, and again during the Monica scandal and the impeachment, a lot of us felt the Clintons were being treated unfairly and we defended them. I personally stood up to my family and my in-laws who were opposed to Clinton's political agenda and scandalized by his moral failings. I condemned the right wing witch hunts against the Clintons, as did so many other Democrats. In spite of what I knew were their failings, I supported the Clintons, thought impeachment was not justified, and condemned those who were obviously and unfairly out to get them.
Now the Clintons are doing to Barack Obama exactly what was done to them. In the wake of the recent Rev. Wright media blitz, Hillary Clinton has been wooing superdelegates, trying to convince them Barack is unelectable because of it. Instead of standing up for him, as so many stood up for the Clintons when they were being attacked, she is doing the attacking. And she is doing it because all she cares about is winning and gaining power.
Many of us stood up for Bill Clinton when others were attacking him. Even when we found out he had betrayed all of us with his lies, we still stood up for him because we felt he had been treated unfairly. We stood up for Hillary, when people were accusing her of being a lesbian, of causing Bill to cheat on her, and later of staying with him for purely political reasons.
Now, when people are unfairly attacking her opponent in her own party, rather than having the grace and dignity to condemn it, she piles on and tries to take advantage of it.
That is why I condemn Hillary Clinton, while I will never again defend or support her, and why I will not vote for her if she is the nominee. I defended her husband even after he betrayed his supporters with his lies about his behavior. I will not defend her when she adopts the tactics that were used against her and her husband, and attacks a member of her own party so obviously, so callously and so unfairly. As far as I can tell, everything Hillary Clinton has ever done, from her work in the Rose Law Firm, to working for specific liberal policies, to staying with a philandering husband, to voting for the Iraq War, has been done for one reason only: to someday win the White House.
Barack Obama got in the way of her life's ambition and she will apparently stop at nothing - not even fomenting racism - to shove him out of the way. For that reason, she must be stopped.
When the Clintons were under attack from the right wing and the media, before the 1992 election when the allegations of infidelity threatened to doom his candidacy, and again during the Monica scandal and the impeachment, a lot of us felt the Clintons were being treated unfairly and we defended them. I personally stood up to my family and my in-laws who were opposed to Clinton's political agenda and scandalized by his moral failings. I condemned the right wing witch hunts against the Clintons, as did so many other Democrats. In spite of what I knew were their failings, I supported the Clintons, thought impeachment was not justified, and condemned those who were obviously and unfairly out to get them.
Now the Clintons are doing to Barack Obama exactly what was done to them. In the wake of the recent Rev. Wright media blitz, Hillary Clinton has been wooing superdelegates, trying to convince them Barack is unelectable because of it. Instead of standing up for him, as so many stood up for the Clintons when they were being attacked, she is doing the attacking. And she is doing it because all she cares about is winning and gaining power.
Many of us stood up for Bill Clinton when others were attacking him. Even when we found out he had betrayed all of us with his lies, we still stood up for him because we felt he had been treated unfairly. We stood up for Hillary, when people were accusing her of being a lesbian, of causing Bill to cheat on her, and later of staying with him for purely political reasons.
Now, when people are unfairly attacking her opponent in her own party, rather than having the grace and dignity to condemn it, she piles on and tries to take advantage of it.
That is why I condemn Hillary Clinton, while I will never again defend or support her, and why I will not vote for her if she is the nominee. I defended her husband even after he betrayed his supporters with his lies about his behavior. I will not defend her when she adopts the tactics that were used against her and her husband, and attacks a member of her own party so obviously, so callously and so unfairly. As far as I can tell, everything Hillary Clinton has ever done, from her work in the Rose Law Firm, to working for specific liberal policies, to staying with a philandering husband, to voting for the Iraq War, has been done for one reason only: to someday win the White House.
Barack Obama got in the way of her life's ambition and she will apparently stop at nothing - not even fomenting racism - to shove him out of the way. For that reason, she must be stopped.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Real change or politics as usual?
Some people are saying that Barack Obama is finished, that between Hillary Clinton's glee over the issue, Republican hammering away, and blue collar male racism that has been ignited, he is dropping in the polls and should just drop out.
The New York Times today points out Hillary's current strategy to steal the nomination from Obama depends on three things: a continuation of the Wright flap to convince the superdelegates to reject Obama; a decisive win in Pennsylvania; and a lead in the popular vote by June (which would be helped by new primary elections or the seating of the delegates in Michigan and Florida).
Her strategy, of course, ever since the failure of her early strategy to blow everyone out of the race by February, has been to pull the rug out from under the frontrunner Obama by some fancy political footwork. She now has a big assist from the Wright matter, and the latent racism that it has unleashed among white working class democrats and some independents.
Hillary's strategy, of course, is old style politics, brutal, divisive and ugly, and not representative of the kind of change we Obama supporters have seen in our candidate. And if blacks think Hillary's silence as one of her fellow Senators and democrats is being trashed in an unfair and racially motivated way means she is their friend with respect to issues of race, they are mistaken. Hillary Clinton will capitalize on the racial divide brought about by the Wright incident and use it to her advantage, regardless of what it does to race relations in this country.
Hillary Clinton has a chance here to help her party and her country in a way that transcends anything she could do as president. She has a chance to show she really does believe in change, not just change in policies, but change in the way we do politics.
She could drop out of the race, throw her total support to Barack Obama, give her own speech on race, and shame the Republicans, the media, and the rest of the country that is hoping for racial divisions to rescue a Republican Party that was otherwise doomed in 2008.
She could do this, if she really believed in change, if she really believed in healing the racial divide. But she won't do it.
Hillary Clinton does not want to help her party and her country. Hillary Clinton does not want to heal the racial dividel. Hillary Clinton wants only to help herself. And if that isn't politics as usual, then nothing is.
The New York Times today points out Hillary's current strategy to steal the nomination from Obama depends on three things: a continuation of the Wright flap to convince the superdelegates to reject Obama; a decisive win in Pennsylvania; and a lead in the popular vote by June (which would be helped by new primary elections or the seating of the delegates in Michigan and Florida).
Her strategy, of course, ever since the failure of her early strategy to blow everyone out of the race by February, has been to pull the rug out from under the frontrunner Obama by some fancy political footwork. She now has a big assist from the Wright matter, and the latent racism that it has unleashed among white working class democrats and some independents.
Hillary's strategy, of course, is old style politics, brutal, divisive and ugly, and not representative of the kind of change we Obama supporters have seen in our candidate. And if blacks think Hillary's silence as one of her fellow Senators and democrats is being trashed in an unfair and racially motivated way means she is their friend with respect to issues of race, they are mistaken. Hillary Clinton will capitalize on the racial divide brought about by the Wright incident and use it to her advantage, regardless of what it does to race relations in this country.
Hillary Clinton has a chance here to help her party and her country in a way that transcends anything she could do as president. She has a chance to show she really does believe in change, not just change in policies, but change in the way we do politics.
She could drop out of the race, throw her total support to Barack Obama, give her own speech on race, and shame the Republicans, the media, and the rest of the country that is hoping for racial divisions to rescue a Republican Party that was otherwise doomed in 2008.
She could do this, if she really believed in change, if she really believed in healing the racial divide. But she won't do it.
Hillary Clinton does not want to help her party and her country. Hillary Clinton does not want to heal the racial dividel. Hillary Clinton wants only to help herself. And if that isn't politics as usual, then nothing is.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Obama's speech falls on deaf, prejudiced, immature, insecure and ignorant ears
Yesterday the right wing media nuts were shell shocked by Obama's speech, and if they didn't offer a polished critique, it was only because they were stunned.
Twenty four hours have passed and they now have their right wing talking points, and they are as ugly as they come.
Limbaugh is castigating and making fun of Jeremiah Wright. Pat Buchanan is condemning Wright as a hateful man and condemning Obama for not walking out of his church with outrage. Lou Dobbs is echoing their sentiments. And Hannity, that head without a brain, is saying Obama is a racist and an anti-Semite.
There you have it. The swift boating this time around will not be smears and outright lies about a candidate's military record. This time the right wing-nut hit job will be religious and racial. Obama's religion is somehow all wrong, his pastor too angry, his outrage against his pastor insufficient, his separation from him incomplete. And of course this is all so because Obama's pastor, like Obama, is black.
To a large group of white men in this country, black equals frightening. A large group of white men in this country are showing themselves to be ignorant, immature and insecure.
I knew that having a black nominee for the presidency would inflame racial hatred among white men, that it would threaten their manhood and bring out their barely sublimated white supremacism, but I was unprepared for it to erupt this soon and this viciously.
I am appalled and frightened by a certain category of white men in this country who are now speaking openly and in blatant racist terms against a distinguished, intelligent, dignified and accomplished man who cares enough about this country to be away from his family and even risk his life to make it a better place. I can only hope that enough white men will stand up and condemn this as loudly and vehemently as possible - not just men who are liberal and democratic, but men who are conservative and republican.
I'm no fan of Justice Clarence Thomas, but his words keep coming to mind: This is a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks."
Twenty four hours have passed and they now have their right wing talking points, and they are as ugly as they come.
Limbaugh is castigating and making fun of Jeremiah Wright. Pat Buchanan is condemning Wright as a hateful man and condemning Obama for not walking out of his church with outrage. Lou Dobbs is echoing their sentiments. And Hannity, that head without a brain, is saying Obama is a racist and an anti-Semite.
There you have it. The swift boating this time around will not be smears and outright lies about a candidate's military record. This time the right wing-nut hit job will be religious and racial. Obama's religion is somehow all wrong, his pastor too angry, his outrage against his pastor insufficient, his separation from him incomplete. And of course this is all so because Obama's pastor, like Obama, is black.
To a large group of white men in this country, black equals frightening. A large group of white men in this country are showing themselves to be ignorant, immature and insecure.
I knew that having a black nominee for the presidency would inflame racial hatred among white men, that it would threaten their manhood and bring out their barely sublimated white supremacism, but I was unprepared for it to erupt this soon and this viciously.
I am appalled and frightened by a certain category of white men in this country who are now speaking openly and in blatant racist terms against a distinguished, intelligent, dignified and accomplished man who cares enough about this country to be away from his family and even risk his life to make it a better place. I can only hope that enough white men will stand up and condemn this as loudly and vehemently as possible - not just men who are liberal and democratic, but men who are conservative and republican.
I'm no fan of Justice Clarence Thomas, but his words keep coming to mind: This is a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks."
A long, long way to go
The one thing Obama's speech has done is stop the repetition of the sound bites from his former pastor, which were played endlessly on the cable channels. Now these bloviating chatters on the news networks have some other sound bites to replay. However, many of them replay segments of Barack's magnificient speech only to criticize it or question people like Pat Buchanan (who as far as I can tell has never been right about anything in the political arena) about whether it will help or hurt him politically.
One thing that I find interesting and even scandalous about the media coverage of this entire dust-up is that the media treated the black pastor Jeremiah Wright completely differently than it treated the large number of white right wing preachers who have said equally if not more outrageous things over the years. When Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell had that pleasant little conversation in September of 2001 about how America deserved 9/11 because of the behavior of its citizens, it was replayed a number of times, but not nearly as many as times as the words of Jeremiah Wright. And Robertson and Falwell continued to be commentators on the cable networks long after that little interchange. No one asked anyone who sat in their churches or universities to disavow their words. No one asked political candidates to distance themselves from them, and in this election season, Mitt Romney proudly stood next to Robertson to receive his endorsement. At that time, no one questioned Romney's judgment, mostly because the American right wing, biased as it is against Mormons, were all too happy too see Romney genuflect before one of their mad preachers.
And how about McCain's embrace of John Hagee, the man who gets thousands of Americans to dance in the aisles in support of Israel (in order to bring about the End Times in which the Jews will be massacred), and who describes the Catholic Church as a "whore?" Hagee also reportedly blamed Hurricane Katrina on a gay pride parade that was to be held in New Orleans the week after the hurricane struck. This is some pretty crazy stuff, yet we do not see or hear these sound bites repeated over and over, with McCain asked to denounce them.
And how about McCain's embrace of Rod Parsley, who not only rejects the separation of church and state, but also said that America was founded to destroy Islam? Why do we not hear these sound bites over and over?
Because there is a double standard.
Because if you are a Democrat, your religious affiliation is somehow suspect, your preachers somehow over the top. And if you are a black Democrat, it is even worse. Recall, if you have ever had the stomach to listen, how Rush Limbaugh sarcastically exaggerates and thus mocks the word "Reverend" whenever he invokes the name of Jesse Jackson.
Because if you are a Republican, it doesn't matter how crazy your pastors are, how insane their rantings, as long as they wear a flag pin, love war, and claim to want the Christian Church (well, only the right kind of Christian Church) to rule over America. If you are a Republican and an evangelical, you can apparently say and do anything you want.
Because Republicans think they have a monopoly on religion and they own God. They claim to know the mind of God, to speak for God, and to pass judgment in God's name. The arrogance is mind-boggling.
And the press has bought into this. The press barely criticizes Republican religious rantings, because, well, you just don't do that. Republican preachers are exempt from media criticism.
Listen to the speeches of John Hagee and compare them to the sermons of Jeremiah Wright. Hagee has said just as many if not more outrageous things, yet white anger is not as verboten as black anger, even the anger of a black minister.
The anger of white Republican ministers is godly. The anger of black Democratic ministers is satanic and unpatriotic.
Never mind that the role of a prophet is to afflict the comfortable. Never mind that the United States of America, with its history of violence, arrogance, and intervention in areas of the world where it has no business intervening, sometimes needs affliction.
Never mind. No matter how accurate they may be, no matter how gifted or skilled, blacks must be put in their place – black preachers and black candidates.
And now that Barack Obama has not been put in his place, now that he has shown he can rise above the fray and give a different kind of speech, conservatives are rushing to manufacture new reasons to condemn him. Rush Limbaugh insists he is now the "black candidate," implying that being the black candidate will doom his chances. Is that not overtly racist?
If this whole thing (from the endless replay of Wright's remarks to the critique of Obama's speech) doesn't smack of racism, I don't know what does. And how about the fact that while the media was pouncing on Obama for words his minister said, the words of the white candidate, words that showed a profound ignorance of foreign affairs (McCain repeated several times the obviously false claim that Iran is training al Qaeda, until Joe Lieberman finally leaned over and told him he was mistaken) were glossed over? Is the obvious ignorance of the Republican candidate less meaningful than the angry words of a candidate's preacher? Apparently so. Republicans are allowed to be ignorant of the most significant foreign policy facts, but a Democrat whose IQ and knowledge outshines any Republican, is deemed not sufficiently patriotic to be president because his minister said some outrageous things. Underneath this veneer, however, the reality is as Rush Limbaugh hints, that to some Obama is deemed unacceptable for the presidency simply because he is black.
We may not have white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains any more, but we definitely still have white preachers and black preachers, white candidates and black candidates, and the black preachers and black candidates are still treated completely differently than the white candidates.
What a petty, stupid people we are!
One thing that I find interesting and even scandalous about the media coverage of this entire dust-up is that the media treated the black pastor Jeremiah Wright completely differently than it treated the large number of white right wing preachers who have said equally if not more outrageous things over the years. When Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell had that pleasant little conversation in September of 2001 about how America deserved 9/11 because of the behavior of its citizens, it was replayed a number of times, but not nearly as many as times as the words of Jeremiah Wright. And Robertson and Falwell continued to be commentators on the cable networks long after that little interchange. No one asked anyone who sat in their churches or universities to disavow their words. No one asked political candidates to distance themselves from them, and in this election season, Mitt Romney proudly stood next to Robertson to receive his endorsement. At that time, no one questioned Romney's judgment, mostly because the American right wing, biased as it is against Mormons, were all too happy too see Romney genuflect before one of their mad preachers.
And how about McCain's embrace of John Hagee, the man who gets thousands of Americans to dance in the aisles in support of Israel (in order to bring about the End Times in which the Jews will be massacred), and who describes the Catholic Church as a "whore?" Hagee also reportedly blamed Hurricane Katrina on a gay pride parade that was to be held in New Orleans the week after the hurricane struck. This is some pretty crazy stuff, yet we do not see or hear these sound bites repeated over and over, with McCain asked to denounce them.
And how about McCain's embrace of Rod Parsley, who not only rejects the separation of church and state, but also said that America was founded to destroy Islam? Why do we not hear these sound bites over and over?
Because there is a double standard.
Because if you are a Democrat, your religious affiliation is somehow suspect, your preachers somehow over the top. And if you are a black Democrat, it is even worse. Recall, if you have ever had the stomach to listen, how Rush Limbaugh sarcastically exaggerates and thus mocks the word "Reverend" whenever he invokes the name of Jesse Jackson.
Because if you are a Republican, it doesn't matter how crazy your pastors are, how insane their rantings, as long as they wear a flag pin, love war, and claim to want the Christian Church (well, only the right kind of Christian Church) to rule over America. If you are a Republican and an evangelical, you can apparently say and do anything you want.
Because Republicans think they have a monopoly on religion and they own God. They claim to know the mind of God, to speak for God, and to pass judgment in God's name. The arrogance is mind-boggling.
And the press has bought into this. The press barely criticizes Republican religious rantings, because, well, you just don't do that. Republican preachers are exempt from media criticism.
Listen to the speeches of John Hagee and compare them to the sermons of Jeremiah Wright. Hagee has said just as many if not more outrageous things, yet white anger is not as verboten as black anger, even the anger of a black minister.
The anger of white Republican ministers is godly. The anger of black Democratic ministers is satanic and unpatriotic.
Never mind that the role of a prophet is to afflict the comfortable. Never mind that the United States of America, with its history of violence, arrogance, and intervention in areas of the world where it has no business intervening, sometimes needs affliction.
Never mind. No matter how accurate they may be, no matter how gifted or skilled, blacks must be put in their place – black preachers and black candidates.
And now that Barack Obama has not been put in his place, now that he has shown he can rise above the fray and give a different kind of speech, conservatives are rushing to manufacture new reasons to condemn him. Rush Limbaugh insists he is now the "black candidate," implying that being the black candidate will doom his chances. Is that not overtly racist?
If this whole thing (from the endless replay of Wright's remarks to the critique of Obama's speech) doesn't smack of racism, I don't know what does. And how about the fact that while the media was pouncing on Obama for words his minister said, the words of the white candidate, words that showed a profound ignorance of foreign affairs (McCain repeated several times the obviously false claim that Iran is training al Qaeda, until Joe Lieberman finally leaned over and told him he was mistaken) were glossed over? Is the obvious ignorance of the Republican candidate less meaningful than the angry words of a candidate's preacher? Apparently so. Republicans are allowed to be ignorant of the most significant foreign policy facts, but a Democrat whose IQ and knowledge outshines any Republican, is deemed not sufficiently patriotic to be president because his minister said some outrageous things. Underneath this veneer, however, the reality is as Rush Limbaugh hints, that to some Obama is deemed unacceptable for the presidency simply because he is black.
We may not have white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains any more, but we definitely still have white preachers and black preachers, white candidates and black candidates, and the black preachers and black candidates are still treated completely differently than the white candidates.
What a petty, stupid people we are!
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Lifting us up
I just finished watching the first two episodes of HBO's John Adams and it was an interesting documentary to view on the same day as Barack Obama's magnificent speech reminding us what the Founding Fathers left unfinished when they declared independence from Great Britain, and thus began the United States of America, in 1776.
It also saddens me to see how far from civility our politics has veered since that time.
Of course there were disagreements, some almost impossible to reconcile, but through it all the representatives of the colonies remained civil, all of them searching for the best possible course of action to save their land, their families, and their liberties from a despotic king. They all had enormous courage, knowing they could be hanged for their bold actions, but they went ahead anyway, believing there could be no other way.
At one point in the documentary, after a contentious vote, one of the representatives said the expected and politically correct "God save the king." At which, Thomas Jefferson, normally quiet during the proceedings, said "God damn the king."
I thought, of course, of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's long time pastor whose "God damn America" has reverberated across the airways these past few days, threatening to sink Obama's candidacy for the presidency.
At a time when it was treason to damn the king, Jefferson's frustration with the behavior of the crown led him to utter these words that could have sent him to the gallows. Yet today, when we think of Jefferson we do not hear these words. We hear only the words of the Declaration of Independence, which he penned shortly afterwards.
I'm sure Jeremiah Wright has said many inspiring words, as Barack Obama reminded us today. Yet his entire ministry has been reduced to a few frustration induced angry and passionate sound bites, shown endlessly on television by the corporate media as they seek to destroy the candidacy of the first viable African American presidential candidate.
How disgusting political campaigns have become in this once great country! How utterly contemptible it has been on the part of the media, which seeks ratings in the tarnishing of this young orator and lawmaker, and the crazed right wing big mouths of this country, who care nothing for the country and its people, but think only of themselves, their power, and the ascendancy of their failed and empty ideology.
Barack Obama gave a brilliant speech today, one that will be read by students of history for hundreds of years. Whether or not he wins the nomination, whether or not he survives the Clinton attempt to wrest it from him by political innuendo and intrigue, whether or not the people choose another empty headed Republican president who cannot match the intellect and spirit of this man, Barack Obama has shown us the best of America. He has shown us we can be better, stronger, kinder, more hopeful, and more united. He said things today no one has said before, and no one could say better, and he has lifted us up even as his enemies try desperately to bring him down.
The petty radio personalities, the envious Clinton strategists and supporters, and the desperate right wing nuts will continue to mock and denigrate him, but it is too late. Whether or not he becomes president, he has called us to be a better people, a better nation.
It will our great loss if we do not choose him as our leader.
It also saddens me to see how far from civility our politics has veered since that time.
Of course there were disagreements, some almost impossible to reconcile, but through it all the representatives of the colonies remained civil, all of them searching for the best possible course of action to save their land, their families, and their liberties from a despotic king. They all had enormous courage, knowing they could be hanged for their bold actions, but they went ahead anyway, believing there could be no other way.
At one point in the documentary, after a contentious vote, one of the representatives said the expected and politically correct "God save the king." At which, Thomas Jefferson, normally quiet during the proceedings, said "God damn the king."
I thought, of course, of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's long time pastor whose "God damn America" has reverberated across the airways these past few days, threatening to sink Obama's candidacy for the presidency.
At a time when it was treason to damn the king, Jefferson's frustration with the behavior of the crown led him to utter these words that could have sent him to the gallows. Yet today, when we think of Jefferson we do not hear these words. We hear only the words of the Declaration of Independence, which he penned shortly afterwards.
I'm sure Jeremiah Wright has said many inspiring words, as Barack Obama reminded us today. Yet his entire ministry has been reduced to a few frustration induced angry and passionate sound bites, shown endlessly on television by the corporate media as they seek to destroy the candidacy of the first viable African American presidential candidate.
How disgusting political campaigns have become in this once great country! How utterly contemptible it has been on the part of the media, which seeks ratings in the tarnishing of this young orator and lawmaker, and the crazed right wing big mouths of this country, who care nothing for the country and its people, but think only of themselves, their power, and the ascendancy of their failed and empty ideology.
Barack Obama gave a brilliant speech today, one that will be read by students of history for hundreds of years. Whether or not he wins the nomination, whether or not he survives the Clinton attempt to wrest it from him by political innuendo and intrigue, whether or not the people choose another empty headed Republican president who cannot match the intellect and spirit of this man, Barack Obama has shown us the best of America. He has shown us we can be better, stronger, kinder, more hopeful, and more united. He said things today no one has said before, and no one could say better, and he has lifted us up even as his enemies try desperately to bring him down.
The petty radio personalities, the envious Clinton strategists and supporters, and the desperate right wing nuts will continue to mock and denigrate him, but it is too late. Whether or not he becomes president, he has called us to be a better people, a better nation.
It will our great loss if we do not choose him as our leader.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The angry sermons of Jeremiah Wright
Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has been condemned for giving fiery, angry sermons that criticized and even condemned America for its treatment of African Americans as well as its foreign policies that led to some fanatics attacking us on 9/11. Obama himself is being attacked for not having distanced himself from the church and condemned Wright earlier.
One thing I think a lot of people are missing is that Wright's angry sermon after 9/11 was given when a lot of people were angry. He was not a politician, not speaking to a national audience. He was talking to his African American flock that had known terrorism of one variety or another for generations. He was speaking in a language few if any white churches are familiar with and he was coming from an attempt to understand 9/11, and to put it into a context his congregation could understand.
It has been a long time since the Emancipation Proclomation, and a lot of whites think slavery and discrimination ended then, but any African American can tell you they still face discrimination. The recent subprime meltdown, for example, is a testimonial to the fact that far more blacks were targeted for unfair loans than whites. And the candidacy of Obama has brought racism to the fore, even from his opponent on the Democratic side. Angry sermons in African American churches should therefore not surprise or horrify us.
It has also been a long time since 9/11 and a lot of us have forgotten how angry many of us were, and how we were searching to understand what had happened and why. Some of us (like Bush) put all the blame on Islam and a handful of militants. Other of us, including me, saw a bigger picture in failings of our government and foreign policies that caused "blowback." This is what Rev. Wright was saying in that sermon after 9/11.
I went back into my own writings from that time and found an article I wrote shortly after 9/11. I include it here. It is full of anger.
********************************************************************************
First shock, then horror, then grief. Finally anger. I’m angry!
Naturally, most of my anger is directed towards the terrorists who, in their fanaticism and ignorance, their inhumanity and evil, killed thousands of Americans and visitors from other countries, and destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of others. I’m angry because they robbed countless children of their parents, parents of their children, husbands of their wives and wives of their husbands. They took away aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends, fiances, boyfriends and girlfriends.
I’m angry because these foreign invaders robbed us all of our security. How can we ever again trust - as we once did - in the safety of our airplanes, the stability of our high rise buildings, the purity of our water and air, the hearts, minds and intentions of some of those walking freely among us, using the civil liberties we so generously extend to them to hurt us? Oh, we will say in a burst of patriotism that we can’t let the terrorists win by being afraid, but those are words. We are afraid!
I’m outraged at a fanatical wealthy Muslim whose name invades every newspaper, magazine and television news broadcast - Osama bin Ladin, the man now hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. I loathe his protestations of Islamic piety which contradict everything true faith in God teaches, and the Taliban who harbor him and match him in their cruel, indiscriminate violence against their own people, especially their women.
But I’m not just angry at the terrorists. The value of justifiable anger is that it forces one to think and urges one to action. My anger calls on me to look, not only at others but also at myself, not only at other nations and religions, but also at my own. And so my anger is directed far beyond the 19 hijackers and the cells of Islamic fundamentalists all around the world who even today continue to conspire against the United States, Israel, and western culture. I am also angry at those closer to home.
I’m angry at the intelligence agencies for failing us. Perhaps that’s unfair, but it now appears that the CIA, FBI and other agencies whom we count on to keep us protected, knew for a long time about the dangers of terrorism and still did not prevent this horror. I’m angry at budget cuts and regulations which prevented these agencies from doing their jobs as well as they could have.
I’m angry at our political leaders who focused so much on protecting our borders against drug dealers and illegal immigrants that they allowed madmen from the middle east to enter our country and stay for years to plan their evil deeds. Why did we have a very visible “war on drugs” long before we focused on terrorism?
I’m angry at Republicans for spewing so much hate against President Clinton, and spending so much valuable time examining his sex life, that they neglected the work of intelligence and counter terrorism and at the same time gave our enemies reason to believe we were a frivolous people, an easy target.
I’m angry at Democrats and Republicans for prolonging the recent presidential election and leaving our country in limbo for so many months. In the wake of the deaths of over three thousand people, I’m angry at our pettiness.
I’m angry at years of short sighted foreign policy - both Republican and Democrat - that has given power and arms to our current enemies and cost the lives of so many military and civilians, all in an effort to promote our current interests. Didn’t we help Saddam Hussein in his fight against Iran and didn’t that only give him the ammunition he needed to fight us a few years later? Didn’t we support the Taliban against the Soviet Union? When will we learn?
I’m angry at the owners of a few flight schools who were more interested in making money teaching Arab men to fly “but not take off and land,” than in notifying authorities of such suspicious requests. Again, it’s probably an unfair accusation, but anger is there nonetheless.
I’m angry at the media for becoming more a purveyor of entertainment than an essential source of needed information. While the plot to destroy America was being hatched, surely the biggest story of the past fifty years, the media were busy playing Sherlock Holmes in the case of Gary Condit and the missing intern. Where were the brilliant investigative journalists when we really needed them? Now the media is fully engaged, each television network obsessed with the story of September 11 and America’s plans to respond, some giving music and a title to their coverage, as if the events of the past weeks are a mini-series. What rationale, I ask, is behind CNN calling their coverage America’s “New War” as if current events have to do with fashion or the promotion of a new product?
I am angry at the complacency and blindness of the masses of American people, including myself, who care more about their latest trip to McDonald’s or the prestige of the university - or even preschool - they wish their children to attend than they do about their fellow human beings on the other side of the world who have neither food nor water, let alone any education. In fact, it is both poverty and ignorance that allows a few mad leaders to build hatred among their uneducated followers, hatred that targets an entire culture.
I’m angry at everyone in this country - from the politicians to the car manufacturers - who refused to develop alternate sources of energy so that we could stop our dependency on corrupt dictatorships in the middle east for oil to feed our gas guzzling SUVs.
I’m angry at all the good Muslims who did not speak against those who have hijacked their religion for their own purposes. They complain now that they are being discriminated against, but they shouldn’t really be surprised. If in months and years past they had loudly and passionately condemned those who plot murder and destruction while professing to be devout Muslims, Americans could make a distinction. But they remained silent while they allowed radical murderers to define their religion, worship in their mosques and collect money from them to commit murder.
I’m angry at all religious fundamentalists, not just the Islamic variety. From the crusades and inquisition, undertakings performed in the name of Christ, to the militant leaders of the pro-life movement who inspire men to kill doctors, religious fundamentalists bring violence and hate to the world. Is the killing of a doctor by a “Christian” any less a violation of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” than the act of a suicide bomber? Genuine holy people do not murder human beings, nor say, as did Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson, that a people deserve to be murdered. Those who kill in the name of God, Yahweh or Allah are anything but holy. They may be fervent, passionate believers in something, but it is related neither to God nor to holiness.
My anger, however, does not dim my love for my country. Americans may sometimes be frivolous and arrogant, but we can be a great people. We look at all sides of an issue; we tolerate multiple viewpoints; we have freedom of speech and religion; we care for our elderly and our sick. Large numbers of our citizens provide health care and food to our poor as well as the poor all around the world where we are welcome. We rescue those in danger, even giving our lives to save others, and we give generously to victims of disasters. No one who is paying attention to the stories of the past three weeks can deny that America is a nation of heroes who would sacrifice their lives for those they do not even know.
But we have a dark side. We export music and movies which some parts of the world see as evil. To them, our freedom of expression is proof we are the great Satan. Why must we continue to show this side of ourselves? Must we, in the name of artistic expression and freedom of speech, produce pornographic movies and rock songs espousing violence? Would our country suffer without them? After all, while we were going to the movies and watching fictional thrillers and spy stories, complete with special effects pyrotechnics, flesh and blood men were planning the real thing. Even though we abhor state sponsored censorship, can we not censor ourselves and present a better picture of our goodness to the world?
Must we also continue to be so greedy? On a daily basis, the bottom line in America is always money. While that has made us a wealthy nation it has also made others envy and hate us. Must our corporations care so much about huge profits that they refuse to pay a living wage to Americans and instead take advantage of the poverty of other nations to pay a pittance to workers there? Must they pollute environments and create 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases while they pressure our government not to sign the Kyoto environmental treaty, leading President Bush to say “I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy or hurt American workers”? He might as well have said “Screw you, countries of the world, we want to drive our SUV’s, build our mansions and get rich.” But are our workers and our economy any more important than those of any other country? Must we insist on being the richest nation in the world? Don’t we understand that as our wealth grows, the envy of others grows as well? Yes we are generous, but we have given a small amount of our own money when we could have helped other nations become prosperous too.
I’m angry that we unwittingly gave the terrorists the weapons to attack us. They used our technology, our airplanes, our flight training, probably even our money. They took advantage of our trusting natures, our friendliness, our willingness to welcome foreigners and accept immigrants and tourists. And they used some of our exports of popular culture to propagandize against us, build religious fervor and recruit young men to commit suicidal/homicidal acts. I am angry at the frivolous, greedy, selfish, narcissistic and immoral side of our culture which - to the Islamic world - masks our seriousness, our generosity and our kindness.
Finally, I am angry because my life, the lives of my children and grandchildren, and America itself will never be the same. Most Americans aren’t striving to be rich or famous. All most of them want is to be with their families, to love them and keep them as safe as possible, to do the work they need to do, to walk down the street without fear, to have enough money to live in a home and buy weekly groceries and to be able to see a doctor when they are sick. Most human beings around the world want the same things. While many citizens of the world have never had those simple luxuries, we in American have, and today, for the first time in my life, I am worried that this could change.
Terrorism could destroy everything - our security, our economy, our environment, our freedom, our ability to protect our families. The attack of September 11 has already had an impact. And to some extent, those who have grasped for superfluous material wealth, unlimited sexual freedom, hedonistic personal pleasures, excessive power and celebrity and even questionable “artistic expression” have presented a vision of America to the madmen of the world which has given them a fanatical justification to plot our destruction.
While I condemn Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who so callously stated that we deserved this horrendous attack because of our immorality, I nevertheless am angry at those in America who lure and are lured by so much that contradicts the values we once stood for. America, the land and the people I love, did not deserve this. So, in addition to waging a war against terrorism, America must realize that the rest of the world is watching us. We can be a good role model or we can be ugly Americans. We can give all people a reason to love and admire us or to hate and condemn us.
While we root out those lunatics who would kill themselves and others in a twisted and rabid sense of God’s will, we must also face the choice before us. We can educate ourselves about those who view the world from a different perspective, and reevaluate our values, our foreign policy and our priorities. We can export our goodness instead of our vacuous popular culture, use our enormous resources to lead and help the world, protect the environment and focus on the things that really matter, or we can remain self-indulgent, capricious and complacent.
What is called for now is a new American dream, not the one that is limited to our shores and concerned about economic success, but one that includes the rest of the world. We can no longer afford to be a nation that thinks only of its own citizens. We cannot remain rugged individualists and single-minded entrepreneurs. Nor can some of our citizens continue to insist that we are a “Christian nation” that must convert others to our beliefs.
Our new American dream must be world peace, tolerance among believers of all the world’s religions, and cooperation and understanding among nations. We must listen to those abroad who hate us and envy us. We may not agree with them, we may believe they have misjudged us, we do not have to give in to their demands, but we must listen nonetheless. You don’t have to agree with someone to listen to them. We must digest their words and look at ourselves. Yes, it’s time for us to defend ourselves and put an end to terrorism, but it’s also time for us to examine our national conscience.
One thing I think a lot of people are missing is that Wright's angry sermon after 9/11 was given when a lot of people were angry. He was not a politician, not speaking to a national audience. He was talking to his African American flock that had known terrorism of one variety or another for generations. He was speaking in a language few if any white churches are familiar with and he was coming from an attempt to understand 9/11, and to put it into a context his congregation could understand.
It has been a long time since the Emancipation Proclomation, and a lot of whites think slavery and discrimination ended then, but any African American can tell you they still face discrimination. The recent subprime meltdown, for example, is a testimonial to the fact that far more blacks were targeted for unfair loans than whites. And the candidacy of Obama has brought racism to the fore, even from his opponent on the Democratic side. Angry sermons in African American churches should therefore not surprise or horrify us.
It has also been a long time since 9/11 and a lot of us have forgotten how angry many of us were, and how we were searching to understand what had happened and why. Some of us (like Bush) put all the blame on Islam and a handful of militants. Other of us, including me, saw a bigger picture in failings of our government and foreign policies that caused "blowback." This is what Rev. Wright was saying in that sermon after 9/11.
I went back into my own writings from that time and found an article I wrote shortly after 9/11. I include it here. It is full of anger.
********************************************************************************
First shock, then horror, then grief. Finally anger. I’m angry!
Naturally, most of my anger is directed towards the terrorists who, in their fanaticism and ignorance, their inhumanity and evil, killed thousands of Americans and visitors from other countries, and destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of others. I’m angry because they robbed countless children of their parents, parents of their children, husbands of their wives and wives of their husbands. They took away aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends, fiances, boyfriends and girlfriends.
I’m angry because these foreign invaders robbed us all of our security. How can we ever again trust - as we once did - in the safety of our airplanes, the stability of our high rise buildings, the purity of our water and air, the hearts, minds and intentions of some of those walking freely among us, using the civil liberties we so generously extend to them to hurt us? Oh, we will say in a burst of patriotism that we can’t let the terrorists win by being afraid, but those are words. We are afraid!
I’m outraged at a fanatical wealthy Muslim whose name invades every newspaper, magazine and television news broadcast - Osama bin Ladin, the man now hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. I loathe his protestations of Islamic piety which contradict everything true faith in God teaches, and the Taliban who harbor him and match him in their cruel, indiscriminate violence against their own people, especially their women.
But I’m not just angry at the terrorists. The value of justifiable anger is that it forces one to think and urges one to action. My anger calls on me to look, not only at others but also at myself, not only at other nations and religions, but also at my own. And so my anger is directed far beyond the 19 hijackers and the cells of Islamic fundamentalists all around the world who even today continue to conspire against the United States, Israel, and western culture. I am also angry at those closer to home.
I’m angry at the intelligence agencies for failing us. Perhaps that’s unfair, but it now appears that the CIA, FBI and other agencies whom we count on to keep us protected, knew for a long time about the dangers of terrorism and still did not prevent this horror. I’m angry at budget cuts and regulations which prevented these agencies from doing their jobs as well as they could have.
I’m angry at our political leaders who focused so much on protecting our borders against drug dealers and illegal immigrants that they allowed madmen from the middle east to enter our country and stay for years to plan their evil deeds. Why did we have a very visible “war on drugs” long before we focused on terrorism?
I’m angry at Republicans for spewing so much hate against President Clinton, and spending so much valuable time examining his sex life, that they neglected the work of intelligence and counter terrorism and at the same time gave our enemies reason to believe we were a frivolous people, an easy target.
I’m angry at Democrats and Republicans for prolonging the recent presidential election and leaving our country in limbo for so many months. In the wake of the deaths of over three thousand people, I’m angry at our pettiness.
I’m angry at years of short sighted foreign policy - both Republican and Democrat - that has given power and arms to our current enemies and cost the lives of so many military and civilians, all in an effort to promote our current interests. Didn’t we help Saddam Hussein in his fight against Iran and didn’t that only give him the ammunition he needed to fight us a few years later? Didn’t we support the Taliban against the Soviet Union? When will we learn?
I’m angry at the owners of a few flight schools who were more interested in making money teaching Arab men to fly “but not take off and land,” than in notifying authorities of such suspicious requests. Again, it’s probably an unfair accusation, but anger is there nonetheless.
I’m angry at the media for becoming more a purveyor of entertainment than an essential source of needed information. While the plot to destroy America was being hatched, surely the biggest story of the past fifty years, the media were busy playing Sherlock Holmes in the case of Gary Condit and the missing intern. Where were the brilliant investigative journalists when we really needed them? Now the media is fully engaged, each television network obsessed with the story of September 11 and America’s plans to respond, some giving music and a title to their coverage, as if the events of the past weeks are a mini-series. What rationale, I ask, is behind CNN calling their coverage America’s “New War” as if current events have to do with fashion or the promotion of a new product?
I am angry at the complacency and blindness of the masses of American people, including myself, who care more about their latest trip to McDonald’s or the prestige of the university - or even preschool - they wish their children to attend than they do about their fellow human beings on the other side of the world who have neither food nor water, let alone any education. In fact, it is both poverty and ignorance that allows a few mad leaders to build hatred among their uneducated followers, hatred that targets an entire culture.
I’m angry at everyone in this country - from the politicians to the car manufacturers - who refused to develop alternate sources of energy so that we could stop our dependency on corrupt dictatorships in the middle east for oil to feed our gas guzzling SUVs.
I’m angry at all the good Muslims who did not speak against those who have hijacked their religion for their own purposes. They complain now that they are being discriminated against, but they shouldn’t really be surprised. If in months and years past they had loudly and passionately condemned those who plot murder and destruction while professing to be devout Muslims, Americans could make a distinction. But they remained silent while they allowed radical murderers to define their religion, worship in their mosques and collect money from them to commit murder.
I’m angry at all religious fundamentalists, not just the Islamic variety. From the crusades and inquisition, undertakings performed in the name of Christ, to the militant leaders of the pro-life movement who inspire men to kill doctors, religious fundamentalists bring violence and hate to the world. Is the killing of a doctor by a “Christian” any less a violation of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” than the act of a suicide bomber? Genuine holy people do not murder human beings, nor say, as did Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson, that a people deserve to be murdered. Those who kill in the name of God, Yahweh or Allah are anything but holy. They may be fervent, passionate believers in something, but it is related neither to God nor to holiness.
My anger, however, does not dim my love for my country. Americans may sometimes be frivolous and arrogant, but we can be a great people. We look at all sides of an issue; we tolerate multiple viewpoints; we have freedom of speech and religion; we care for our elderly and our sick. Large numbers of our citizens provide health care and food to our poor as well as the poor all around the world where we are welcome. We rescue those in danger, even giving our lives to save others, and we give generously to victims of disasters. No one who is paying attention to the stories of the past three weeks can deny that America is a nation of heroes who would sacrifice their lives for those they do not even know.
But we have a dark side. We export music and movies which some parts of the world see as evil. To them, our freedom of expression is proof we are the great Satan. Why must we continue to show this side of ourselves? Must we, in the name of artistic expression and freedom of speech, produce pornographic movies and rock songs espousing violence? Would our country suffer without them? After all, while we were going to the movies and watching fictional thrillers and spy stories, complete with special effects pyrotechnics, flesh and blood men were planning the real thing. Even though we abhor state sponsored censorship, can we not censor ourselves and present a better picture of our goodness to the world?
Must we also continue to be so greedy? On a daily basis, the bottom line in America is always money. While that has made us a wealthy nation it has also made others envy and hate us. Must our corporations care so much about huge profits that they refuse to pay a living wage to Americans and instead take advantage of the poverty of other nations to pay a pittance to workers there? Must they pollute environments and create 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases while they pressure our government not to sign the Kyoto environmental treaty, leading President Bush to say “I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy or hurt American workers”? He might as well have said “Screw you, countries of the world, we want to drive our SUV’s, build our mansions and get rich.” But are our workers and our economy any more important than those of any other country? Must we insist on being the richest nation in the world? Don’t we understand that as our wealth grows, the envy of others grows as well? Yes we are generous, but we have given a small amount of our own money when we could have helped other nations become prosperous too.
I’m angry that we unwittingly gave the terrorists the weapons to attack us. They used our technology, our airplanes, our flight training, probably even our money. They took advantage of our trusting natures, our friendliness, our willingness to welcome foreigners and accept immigrants and tourists. And they used some of our exports of popular culture to propagandize against us, build religious fervor and recruit young men to commit suicidal/homicidal acts. I am angry at the frivolous, greedy, selfish, narcissistic and immoral side of our culture which - to the Islamic world - masks our seriousness, our generosity and our kindness.
Finally, I am angry because my life, the lives of my children and grandchildren, and America itself will never be the same. Most Americans aren’t striving to be rich or famous. All most of them want is to be with their families, to love them and keep them as safe as possible, to do the work they need to do, to walk down the street without fear, to have enough money to live in a home and buy weekly groceries and to be able to see a doctor when they are sick. Most human beings around the world want the same things. While many citizens of the world have never had those simple luxuries, we in American have, and today, for the first time in my life, I am worried that this could change.
Terrorism could destroy everything - our security, our economy, our environment, our freedom, our ability to protect our families. The attack of September 11 has already had an impact. And to some extent, those who have grasped for superfluous material wealth, unlimited sexual freedom, hedonistic personal pleasures, excessive power and celebrity and even questionable “artistic expression” have presented a vision of America to the madmen of the world which has given them a fanatical justification to plot our destruction.
While I condemn Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who so callously stated that we deserved this horrendous attack because of our immorality, I nevertheless am angry at those in America who lure and are lured by so much that contradicts the values we once stood for. America, the land and the people I love, did not deserve this. So, in addition to waging a war against terrorism, America must realize that the rest of the world is watching us. We can be a good role model or we can be ugly Americans. We can give all people a reason to love and admire us or to hate and condemn us.
While we root out those lunatics who would kill themselves and others in a twisted and rabid sense of God’s will, we must also face the choice before us. We can educate ourselves about those who view the world from a different perspective, and reevaluate our values, our foreign policy and our priorities. We can export our goodness instead of our vacuous popular culture, use our enormous resources to lead and help the world, protect the environment and focus on the things that really matter, or we can remain self-indulgent, capricious and complacent.
What is called for now is a new American dream, not the one that is limited to our shores and concerned about economic success, but one that includes the rest of the world. We can no longer afford to be a nation that thinks only of its own citizens. We cannot remain rugged individualists and single-minded entrepreneurs. Nor can some of our citizens continue to insist that we are a “Christian nation” that must convert others to our beliefs.
Our new American dream must be world peace, tolerance among believers of all the world’s religions, and cooperation and understanding among nations. We must listen to those abroad who hate us and envy us. We may not agree with them, we may believe they have misjudged us, we do not have to give in to their demands, but we must listen nonetheless. You don’t have to agree with someone to listen to them. We must digest their words and look at ourselves. Yes, it’s time for us to defend ourselves and put an end to terrorism, but it’s also time for us to examine our national conscience.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Will they kill hope again?
For a few weeks I thought maybe I was wrong.
For a few weeks I thought my original belief that Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate - and would be assured the nomination because of their support - was going to be disproven by the power of the popular movement surrounding Barack Obama.
For a few weeks I thought maybe hope would win, maybe the people would prevail, maybe we were heading to an epic change in America that would signal a real return to democracy.
For a few weeks I contemplated that this might actually be a tranformational election, one in which the country would finally be baptized in the waters of civil rights and inclusiveness and equality and at last atone for the original sins of slavery and inequality that have so infected this country until this very day.
For a few weeks I rejoiced that the ugly politics of Bush-Clinton, of Rove and Attwater, of Hannity and Limbaugh, might finally be over and the people would not be fooled again.
For a few weeks I imagined a country united by a Christian, half black, half white, young and brilliant orator who preached hope and unity and change.
For a few weeks I held what now seems to be a delusional hope.
Prior to Barack Obama's entrance into the race I held the cynical view that the establishment (corporations and the political elite) choose the nominees of each party. It isn't hard to see how they do it – they provide the money, manipulate the news, determine the story lines, and focus on what takes down one candidate and what elevates another.
They did it in 2000 – focusing on stupid and false story lines like the one about Gore insisting he "invented the internet" and ignoring the stories that might have taken down Bush – like his avoidance of military service, his arrests, his total ignorance of domestic and foreign policy, and his mythical religious conversion. Then they failed to report that the "ordinary citizens" demanding a stop of the recount in Florida were actually Bush staffers sent in to create a false outrage. When long after the Supreme Court unconstitutionally anointed Bush president, they buried on the back pages of newspapers the reality that a recount would have given the state and the presidency to Gore.
They did it in 2004 – broadcasting the Swift Boat lies as if they were truth, allowing the false stories surrounding Kerry's military service in Vietnam to grow like a cancer until no treatment could make them go away. They did not look into the multiple false red terror alerts that happened almost weekly prior to the election, and magically disappeared once the vote was held. They then ignored the stories of the manipulation of the vote in Ohio which once again gave the presidency to the worst candidate in the history of the country.
And now they have chosen their favored candidates: McCain and Clinton. The press loves McCain and boosted him into the nomination with their favorable, hero-worshipping coverage. And while the press really doesn't like Clinton, their bosses do, and so the ugly racist stories about Obama are now coming forward.
So the airways and the blogosphere are full of stories about Obama's pastor, stories that indicate he is a black separatist, an angry black man, a man who does not love his country. The earlier stories, the ones about Obama being a Muslim, couldn't stop him, so now the story has changed. Obama is no longer rumored to be a Muslim, now he is said to embrace a view of America that is hateful and critical and unpatriotic. He may be a Christian, but he is a black Christian, a Christian whose views threaten white Christians, making him a dangerous black man.
Never mind that what Obama's pastor said is literally true, that Hillary Clinton, for instance, doesn't know what it is to be a black man, and that 9/11 happened because of the violent foreign policy American has perpetrated on the world. He said politically incorrect things you are not allowed to say if you are connected in any way to a presidential candidate.
Well, that's not actually true. You are allowed to say politically incorrect things if you are connected to a favored Republican political candidate. McCain's minister supporters are allowed to say 9/11 was God's punishment for abortionists, gays, lesbians, feminists, and the ACLU. They are allowed to say Katrina was God's punishment because of the gay pride parades and the gay lifestyle in New Orleans. They are allowed to say that the Catholic Church is "The Great Whore."
McCain is allowed to publicly and enthusiastically accept the endorsements of men whose views are outrageous, while Obama must be attacked and shamed because he has connections ranging from none (with Farrakhan) to close (with Wright) with men who have also expressed unacceptable views. What's the difference? There can only be two answers: that Obama is black, and that Obama is not the establishment candidate.
Obama is not the "dangerous black man" that some of Clinton's commercials and viral emails imply. He has no criminal past, though one Clinton staffer said people will wonder if he has ever "dealt drugs." He does not fit any of the racist stereotypes of blacks created by bigots and white supremacists. He does not even appeal to race to secure votes. In fact, Obama's campaign has consistently transcended race.
But Obama is dangerous for another reason. He is a different kind of politician. He doesn't play games with lobbyists and with the rich. He goes directly to the people and the people are responding. He wants them to join him in changing the nation and renewing its promise. With that message, he has simply won too many contests and has to be stopped. The corporations and the powerful in the country cannot afford to let an entire generation actually believe they have any say in who will be president. They must squash hope once again, as they did when they made sure Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy could not be allowed to succeed.
We will see what comes of all of this trashing of Obama. The media and the power brokers are doing their best to destroy him. So far he has maintained his cool and seems to be continuing his transcendence of it all. But voters are gullible, and dishonest and vicious appeals to racism and fear may work with enough people to destroy Obama.
If they do they will also destroy the hopes of a generation, as the assassinations in the sixties destroyed the hopes of my generation.
Hope is a fragile thing, easily dislodged. If Obama can continue to inspire his followers to hope, in spite of these ridiculous and vicious attacks, if he can prove himself to withstand the last vestiges of the original sin of this country as well as the awesome ability of the corporations to control our elections, he will truly transform this country.
We are at an epic turning point – will we go back to the old and the vicious and the ugly or will we courageously move ahead and renew this country, destroying that which divides us and turns us against each other? If Obama can lead us to do that, he will be a transformational figure, the likes of which we have not seen since FDR.
But I fear the powerful elites will not stand for it.
For a few weeks I thought my original belief that Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate - and would be assured the nomination because of their support - was going to be disproven by the power of the popular movement surrounding Barack Obama.
For a few weeks I thought maybe hope would win, maybe the people would prevail, maybe we were heading to an epic change in America that would signal a real return to democracy.
For a few weeks I contemplated that this might actually be a tranformational election, one in which the country would finally be baptized in the waters of civil rights and inclusiveness and equality and at last atone for the original sins of slavery and inequality that have so infected this country until this very day.
For a few weeks I rejoiced that the ugly politics of Bush-Clinton, of Rove and Attwater, of Hannity and Limbaugh, might finally be over and the people would not be fooled again.
For a few weeks I imagined a country united by a Christian, half black, half white, young and brilliant orator who preached hope and unity and change.
For a few weeks I held what now seems to be a delusional hope.
Prior to Barack Obama's entrance into the race I held the cynical view that the establishment (corporations and the political elite) choose the nominees of each party. It isn't hard to see how they do it – they provide the money, manipulate the news, determine the story lines, and focus on what takes down one candidate and what elevates another.
They did it in 2000 – focusing on stupid and false story lines like the one about Gore insisting he "invented the internet" and ignoring the stories that might have taken down Bush – like his avoidance of military service, his arrests, his total ignorance of domestic and foreign policy, and his mythical religious conversion. Then they failed to report that the "ordinary citizens" demanding a stop of the recount in Florida were actually Bush staffers sent in to create a false outrage. When long after the Supreme Court unconstitutionally anointed Bush president, they buried on the back pages of newspapers the reality that a recount would have given the state and the presidency to Gore.
They did it in 2004 – broadcasting the Swift Boat lies as if they were truth, allowing the false stories surrounding Kerry's military service in Vietnam to grow like a cancer until no treatment could make them go away. They did not look into the multiple false red terror alerts that happened almost weekly prior to the election, and magically disappeared once the vote was held. They then ignored the stories of the manipulation of the vote in Ohio which once again gave the presidency to the worst candidate in the history of the country.
And now they have chosen their favored candidates: McCain and Clinton. The press loves McCain and boosted him into the nomination with their favorable, hero-worshipping coverage. And while the press really doesn't like Clinton, their bosses do, and so the ugly racist stories about Obama are now coming forward.
So the airways and the blogosphere are full of stories about Obama's pastor, stories that indicate he is a black separatist, an angry black man, a man who does not love his country. The earlier stories, the ones about Obama being a Muslim, couldn't stop him, so now the story has changed. Obama is no longer rumored to be a Muslim, now he is said to embrace a view of America that is hateful and critical and unpatriotic. He may be a Christian, but he is a black Christian, a Christian whose views threaten white Christians, making him a dangerous black man.
Never mind that what Obama's pastor said is literally true, that Hillary Clinton, for instance, doesn't know what it is to be a black man, and that 9/11 happened because of the violent foreign policy American has perpetrated on the world. He said politically incorrect things you are not allowed to say if you are connected in any way to a presidential candidate.
Well, that's not actually true. You are allowed to say politically incorrect things if you are connected to a favored Republican political candidate. McCain's minister supporters are allowed to say 9/11 was God's punishment for abortionists, gays, lesbians, feminists, and the ACLU. They are allowed to say Katrina was God's punishment because of the gay pride parades and the gay lifestyle in New Orleans. They are allowed to say that the Catholic Church is "The Great Whore."
McCain is allowed to publicly and enthusiastically accept the endorsements of men whose views are outrageous, while Obama must be attacked and shamed because he has connections ranging from none (with Farrakhan) to close (with Wright) with men who have also expressed unacceptable views. What's the difference? There can only be two answers: that Obama is black, and that Obama is not the establishment candidate.
Obama is not the "dangerous black man" that some of Clinton's commercials and viral emails imply. He has no criminal past, though one Clinton staffer said people will wonder if he has ever "dealt drugs." He does not fit any of the racist stereotypes of blacks created by bigots and white supremacists. He does not even appeal to race to secure votes. In fact, Obama's campaign has consistently transcended race.
But Obama is dangerous for another reason. He is a different kind of politician. He doesn't play games with lobbyists and with the rich. He goes directly to the people and the people are responding. He wants them to join him in changing the nation and renewing its promise. With that message, he has simply won too many contests and has to be stopped. The corporations and the powerful in the country cannot afford to let an entire generation actually believe they have any say in who will be president. They must squash hope once again, as they did when they made sure Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy could not be allowed to succeed.
We will see what comes of all of this trashing of Obama. The media and the power brokers are doing their best to destroy him. So far he has maintained his cool and seems to be continuing his transcendence of it all. But voters are gullible, and dishonest and vicious appeals to racism and fear may work with enough people to destroy Obama.
If they do they will also destroy the hopes of a generation, as the assassinations in the sixties destroyed the hopes of my generation.
Hope is a fragile thing, easily dislodged. If Obama can continue to inspire his followers to hope, in spite of these ridiculous and vicious attacks, if he can prove himself to withstand the last vestiges of the original sin of this country as well as the awesome ability of the corporations to control our elections, he will truly transform this country.
We are at an epic turning point – will we go back to the old and the vicious and the ugly or will we courageously move ahead and renew this country, destroying that which divides us and turns us against each other? If Obama can lead us to do that, he will be a transformational figure, the likes of which we have not seen since FDR.
But I fear the powerful elites will not stand for it.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Politicians and wives
So Attorney General extraordinaire, now Governor of New York Elliot Spitzer, has been caught in a prostitution scandal and once again we have the spectre of hypocrisy and a powerful man thinking somehow the rules don't apply to him.
After Bill Clinton's sex scandal, most of the scandals have come from the Republican side: Mark Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Newt Gingrich, etc.
But we cannot attribute this behavior to any one party. Both Democrats and Republicans all too often get caught doing something of a sexual nature that they once condemned. There may be a lot of psychological explanations for this sort of thing, but it doesn't really matter.
Wrong is wrong. And the worst thing about it, after you deal with the betrayal of the public and one's supporters, is what this does to the spouse and the children. This is what gets my blood boiling. How dare these egotists do this to their "supposed" loved ones and then expect them to stand loyally by their sides as they apologize publicly!
The political irony of this situation, however, is interesting. Here we have a Governor of New York, Hillary's home state, and a supporter of Hillary, engaging in infidelity and lawbreaking, reminiscent of what Hillary's husband did when he was president. To the extent that it reminds us of Bill Clinton's capacity to cause trouble in the White House, we should all pay heed.
I feel sorry for Spitzer's wife, as I once felt sorry for Hillary, who as it turned out, did stand by her man. But I don't feel sorry for Hillary now. She decided to stay with her husband in spite of his public humiliation of her, not for love I think, but for the promise of power. There is no guarantee he will not humiliate her again, just as there is no guarantee Spitzer or Foley or Craig or Gingrich will reform and spare their spouses more humiliation.
Women who opt to marry powerful men beware. They often have a sense of entitlement when it comes to women, and one woman is usually not enough. And voters beware. Men who get caught doing this sort of thing once have probably done it many other times when they didn't get caught. And they will do it again. We probably haven't seen the last of Bill Clinton's infidelity, and the distraction that will bring to his wife if she is president, and for that reason alone he should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. We have big, big problems to solve in this country, and that is reason enough not to take a chance on a president who may likely have to deal with an unfaithful spouse. Fool me once.....
I'll tell you one thing. If Hillary had walked out of the White House in 1999 and divorced Bill, then run for the presidency some years later, I would be a lot more inclined to support her, as she really would be her own woman and would show both good judgment and independence.
However, this Spitzer scandal just reminds me how pitiful it is when a politician's wife stands by her man even after he has humiliated her. How on earth are women ever supposed to be taken seriously when they stick by a husband who has wiped the floor with them?
After Bill Clinton's sex scandal, most of the scandals have come from the Republican side: Mark Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Newt Gingrich, etc.
But we cannot attribute this behavior to any one party. Both Democrats and Republicans all too often get caught doing something of a sexual nature that they once condemned. There may be a lot of psychological explanations for this sort of thing, but it doesn't really matter.
Wrong is wrong. And the worst thing about it, after you deal with the betrayal of the public and one's supporters, is what this does to the spouse and the children. This is what gets my blood boiling. How dare these egotists do this to their "supposed" loved ones and then expect them to stand loyally by their sides as they apologize publicly!
The political irony of this situation, however, is interesting. Here we have a Governor of New York, Hillary's home state, and a supporter of Hillary, engaging in infidelity and lawbreaking, reminiscent of what Hillary's husband did when he was president. To the extent that it reminds us of Bill Clinton's capacity to cause trouble in the White House, we should all pay heed.
I feel sorry for Spitzer's wife, as I once felt sorry for Hillary, who as it turned out, did stand by her man. But I don't feel sorry for Hillary now. She decided to stay with her husband in spite of his public humiliation of her, not for love I think, but for the promise of power. There is no guarantee he will not humiliate her again, just as there is no guarantee Spitzer or Foley or Craig or Gingrich will reform and spare their spouses more humiliation.
Women who opt to marry powerful men beware. They often have a sense of entitlement when it comes to women, and one woman is usually not enough. And voters beware. Men who get caught doing this sort of thing once have probably done it many other times when they didn't get caught. And they will do it again. We probably haven't seen the last of Bill Clinton's infidelity, and the distraction that will bring to his wife if she is president, and for that reason alone he should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. We have big, big problems to solve in this country, and that is reason enough not to take a chance on a president who may likely have to deal with an unfaithful spouse. Fool me once.....
I'll tell you one thing. If Hillary had walked out of the White House in 1999 and divorced Bill, then run for the presidency some years later, I would be a lot more inclined to support her, as she really would be her own woman and would show both good judgment and independence.
However, this Spitzer scandal just reminds me how pitiful it is when a politician's wife stands by her man even after he has humiliated her. How on earth are women ever supposed to be taken seriously when they stick by a husband who has wiped the floor with them?
Saturday, March 8, 2008
The Clintons, Samantha Powers, and Rwanda
As noted here previously, Samantha Power, foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, Pulitzer prize winning author and Harvard professor, was forced to resign from the Obama campaign yesterday because she said something off the record (but reported anyway) that millions of Americans are thinking: Hillary Clinton is a monster.
I've seen the young Powers on television many times, mostly on alternate television programs like Democracy Now, and all of them prior to her work on the Obama campaign. She is well known among human rights and peace advocates and has often risked her life to witness and report on human rights abuses. She has more courage in her little finger than Clinton could muster in a lifetime. And now she has become a victim of the Clinton campaign's whining and fake outrage. But perhaps she was targeted for more than this simple off the record comment.
Marc Cooper, Nation magazine and Huffington Post contributer, offers insightful commentary on this story.
Then, Cooper tells me something I didn't know. Power was
Powers goes on to compare Hillary Clinton to Samatha Power:
I just saw Samantha Power comment on her resignation and the damage her comment caused. She was gracious and genuine, full of horror that her words did any harm to Obama or Clinton, and took full responsibility for her actions, which is something the Clintons simply don't do.
She is a hero, in my book, and will probably go on to do great things in the causes she believes in. She will probably also sell more books and perhaps win more Pulitzers. But the Obama campaign has lost a brilliant analyst, all because the Clintons had to destroy another of their many enemies, someone who told the truth about Bill Clinton's indifference to the genocide in Rwanda.
I've seen the young Powers on television many times, mostly on alternate television programs like Democracy Now, and all of them prior to her work on the Obama campaign. She is well known among human rights and peace advocates and has often risked her life to witness and report on human rights abuses. She has more courage in her little finger than Clinton could muster in a lifetime. And now she has become a victim of the Clinton campaign's whining and fake outrage. But perhaps she was targeted for more than this simple off the record comment.
Marc Cooper, Nation magazine and Huffington Post contributer, offers insightful commentary on this story.
In the pungently hypocritical game of American politics, this is just something outside the rules. Whether it's true, or not, matters little. Nor does it matter that the object of Power's derision has just finished spending millions on TV ads implying that Obama would be responsible for the countless deaths of millions of American children sleeping at 3 a.m. Tut, tut. Nothing monstrous about that.
Then, Cooper tells me something I didn't know. Power was
awarded the Pulitzer for her finely written and downright horrifying book A Problem From Hell which, in macabre detail, describes the calculated indifference of the Clinton administration when 800,000 Rwandans were being systematically butchered. The red phone rang and rang and rang again. I don't know where Hillary was then. But her husband and his entire experienced foreign policy team -- from the brass in the Pentagon to the congenitally feckless Secretary of State Warren Christopher -- just let it ring.
Powers goes on to compare Hillary Clinton to Samatha Power:
Therein resides the richest and saddest irony of all. Samantha Power has actually lived the sort of life that Hillary Clinton's campaign staff has, for public consumption, invented for its candidate. Though not quite 40 years old, Power has spent no time on any Wal-Mart boards but has rather dedicated her entire adult life rather tirelessly to championing humanitarian causes. She has spoken up when others were silent. She took great personal risks during the Balkan wars to witness and record and denounce the carnage (She reported that Bill Clinton intervened against the Serbs only when he felt he was losing personal credibility as a result of his inaction. "I'm getting creamed," Power quoted the then-President saying as he fretted over global consternation over his own hesitation to act).
I just saw Samantha Power comment on her resignation and the damage her comment caused. She was gracious and genuine, full of horror that her words did any harm to Obama or Clinton, and took full responsibility for her actions, which is something the Clintons simply don't do.
She is a hero, in my book, and will probably go on to do great things in the causes she believes in. She will probably also sell more books and perhaps win more Pulitzers. But the Obama campaign has lost a brilliant analyst, all because the Clintons had to destroy another of their many enemies, someone who told the truth about Bill Clinton's indifference to the genocide in Rwanda.
Not a good enough reason
I have read some blogs lately that plead with supporters of Barack Obama to support Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee.
These writers acknowledge that many of us despise Clinton (yes, I do despise her, almost as much as I despise George W. Bush) and have good reason to do so, but insist that the future of the Supreme Court is at stake and if we allow McCain to become president, he could turn the Court in a radically different direction for a generation.
I say that's not a good enough reason to vote for this shape shifting monster.
First of all, Hillary's strategy seems to be to give the presidency to McCain if she doesn't get the Democratic nomination. She doesn't seem to care that much about the Supreme Court when she says that she and McCain are both qualified to be commander in chief but Obama isn't. She is deliberately discrediting her fellow Democrat, knowing full well he is ahead of her in delegate votes and could very well be the nominee. She doesn't care. She wants the nod, and if she doesn't get it, she is willing to let McCain win so she can come back in four years. That means she is willing to let McCain appoint as many as four justices to the Supreme Court.
We should never vote for someone who is willing to help the opposition party win a national election if she can't have her own way. So our first goal is to do everything we can to deny her the nomination.
However, if Hillary becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party because she has fooled enough uneducated people or because she has manipulated the Party and the Super stupid delegates, she cannot be rewarded or we will never reform this country and its politics.
So should she steal the nomination, I suggest the following alternate strategy:
Don't stay home on election day. Go to the polls and either abstain from voting in the presidential race or vote for Nader, and vote for the Democratic nominee for the Senate in your state. Contribute as much money as you can to your Senate nominee, work for them if you can, and convince all of your friends to vote for them. The goal here would be to reach a 60+ majority in the Senate so McCain could not get the ultra conservative justices he nominates confirmed.
I realize a McCain presidency would be awful in many, many ways, but with a majority of 60 in the Senate and a large majority in the House, he would be limited in how much damage he could do. Without an effective opposition party, the Congress could de-fund the war, and allow the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. We wouldn't have our country back quite yet, but we could stop the bleeding and keep it on life support for four years, until the rest of the country is finally ready for the change that Obama represents.
Hillary Clinton, if she is the nominee, will suggest that a McCain presidency would be a continuation of the Bush administration, and that is true. But a Clinton presidency would be just as bad. Anyone who believes she is not in the pocket of lobbyists is fooling themselves. Anyone who trusts that Bill Clinton strolling around in the White House with nothing to do would be good news is simply deranged. She must be stopped, preferably before the nomination, but if necessary, after she steals it.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice, but I will never vote for his wife. I am a feminist who does not believe she is a candidate who represents me or the things I believe in. She is a product of the power elite in Washington and she wants only to grab power for herself and her lobbyist buddies. In this, she is no different from so many male presidential candidates who preceded her. This is not the change we want or need, and if she is nominated, then the American people are screwed, no matter who is elected in November.
These writers acknowledge that many of us despise Clinton (yes, I do despise her, almost as much as I despise George W. Bush) and have good reason to do so, but insist that the future of the Supreme Court is at stake and if we allow McCain to become president, he could turn the Court in a radically different direction for a generation.
I say that's not a good enough reason to vote for this shape shifting monster.
First of all, Hillary's strategy seems to be to give the presidency to McCain if she doesn't get the Democratic nomination. She doesn't seem to care that much about the Supreme Court when she says that she and McCain are both qualified to be commander in chief but Obama isn't. She is deliberately discrediting her fellow Democrat, knowing full well he is ahead of her in delegate votes and could very well be the nominee. She doesn't care. She wants the nod, and if she doesn't get it, she is willing to let McCain win so she can come back in four years. That means she is willing to let McCain appoint as many as four justices to the Supreme Court.
We should never vote for someone who is willing to help the opposition party win a national election if she can't have her own way. So our first goal is to do everything we can to deny her the nomination.
However, if Hillary becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party because she has fooled enough uneducated people or because she has manipulated the Party and the Super stupid delegates, she cannot be rewarded or we will never reform this country and its politics.
So should she steal the nomination, I suggest the following alternate strategy:
Don't stay home on election day. Go to the polls and either abstain from voting in the presidential race or vote for Nader, and vote for the Democratic nominee for the Senate in your state. Contribute as much money as you can to your Senate nominee, work for them if you can, and convince all of your friends to vote for them. The goal here would be to reach a 60+ majority in the Senate so McCain could not get the ultra conservative justices he nominates confirmed.
I realize a McCain presidency would be awful in many, many ways, but with a majority of 60 in the Senate and a large majority in the House, he would be limited in how much damage he could do. Without an effective opposition party, the Congress could de-fund the war, and allow the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. We wouldn't have our country back quite yet, but we could stop the bleeding and keep it on life support for four years, until the rest of the country is finally ready for the change that Obama represents.
Hillary Clinton, if she is the nominee, will suggest that a McCain presidency would be a continuation of the Bush administration, and that is true. But a Clinton presidency would be just as bad. Anyone who believes she is not in the pocket of lobbyists is fooling themselves. Anyone who trusts that Bill Clinton strolling around in the White House with nothing to do would be good news is simply deranged. She must be stopped, preferably before the nomination, but if necessary, after she steals it.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice, but I will never vote for his wife. I am a feminist who does not believe she is a candidate who represents me or the things I believe in. She is a product of the power elite in Washington and she wants only to grab power for herself and her lobbyist buddies. In this, she is no different from so many male presidential candidates who preceded her. This is not the change we want or need, and if she is nominated, then the American people are screwed, no matter who is elected in November.
Friday, March 7, 2008
The Clinton Monster
I probably shouldn't say this, but Samantha Powers had a point when she said Hillary Clinton was a "monster."
Clinton's Ohio and Texas victories, with a huge assist from the press and the comedy programs, and Clinton's "working the refs" strategy, insisting the press (the refs) have been unfair to her, have brought the Clinton zombies back to life. These people refuse to die, no matter what they have to do to revive themselves, nor whom or what they take down with them.
When Bill Clinton was impeached, he refused to leave, refused to apologize, refused to acknowledge what he had done to his wife, until he could no longer sustain the lies, and ultimately to the country and the candidacy of Al Gore. And on the day of the impeachment he had no shame, holding a rally on the White House lawn.
Yes, the impeachment was overkill, but I am beginning to understand what the Republicans have apparently understood all along, you can't kill these people's political power by normal means. They are the undead, and even if you hold a mirror or a crucifix up to them, they simply grab one of their associates and block the effect of the dangerous item. They find a way to survive.
And now Hillary is following the template provided by her husband. Hillary Clinton's inevitable nomination was seriously damaged after Iowa. So what did she do? She cried on television, talked all soft and feminine and then, after winning New Hampshire, said she had "found her voice," as if she was a political neophyte who had never spoken in public before. What she meant, of course, was that she had found the perfect phony voice for the right moment.
Now she has won three of four states that held primaries on March 4th and everyone is touting her comeback. But we really should examine how she did it.
She did it with lies, smears, distortions, fear-mongering, working the refs, and more false personas. She also accepted an assist from Rush Limbaugh, who by encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary may be responsible for up to five percent of her vote in Texas.
She lied about Barack's accomplishments, saying all that could be compared to her years of experience and McCain's years of experience was a single speech. She completely dismissed his years in the Illinois legislature and his years in the Senate, only one term short of hers. All together, his legislative experience is longer than hers. He, of course, has never been First Lady, but do we really think Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush or Rosalynn Carter would make good presidents because of their experience planting flowers and meeting foreign women?
She also made sure that picture of Barack in tribal dress got out into the media. Then she went on 60 Minutes and answered Steve Kroft, who asked if she believed that Obama was a Muslim, with a qualified answer. "I take him at his word," she said. And then insisted he was a Christian "as far as I know." She added a smile to make her obvious hedge seem like a sincere statement of support for her rival. This was exactly what she needed to say to the voters of Southern Ohio who are still quite racist and susceptible to fear-mongering. Remember, Ohio went in the Bush column in 2004, either because the voters there were duped by his fear message or because their Republican Secretary of State disenfranchised a sufficient number of African Americans to allow Bush to steal the state's electoral votes.
Then she distorted Obama's position on NAFTA, saying he was winking to the Canadians about his real intention to use his voiced opposition to NAFTA to get votes, all the while having no intention of changing it. Belatedly, we find out that it was actually the Clinton administration that was winking to Canada, but it bears hardly a mention in the media.
She also ran an ad that played to people's fears about Obama's readiness to be commander in chief. She mocked his appeal to hope and cooperation in a display the likes of which I have never seen in a campaign. Interestingly, she decided to run against hope, in complete contrast to what her husband advises: "If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." Obviously, the Clintons don't mean a thing they say. If they say to vote for hope they only mean it if they are the candidates of hope. If they try to stoke your fear, it is because that is the only way they can win. This should be a clear sign that the only thing these two stand for is their own power.
She also went on Saturday Night Live and acted like a real person with a sense of humor and for good measure appeared on The Daily Show. For this election, she didn't find her voice but worked hard to convince everyone she found her funny bone. Alas, it was all part of the strategy to do and say whatever it takes to bury Obama.
But none of this is funny. It is truly frightening that this woman is willing to do whatever it takes to win:
Use fear tactics
Change her persona as many times as necessary
Say whatever will work whether it's true or not
Agree to the rules to not seat delegates in Michigan and Florida and then claim the rules should be changed, and the delegates seated because she "won" there (in Michigan Obama was not even on the ballot, and in Florida many voters stayed home because they knew it wouldn't count)
Know how each state chooses delegates – some by primary and some by caucus – and then insist primaries should count more than caucuses (because she lost all the caucuses), and big states more than small states (because she only wins big states).
Praise the Republican opponent as more ready to be president than your Democratic rival because that way if her rival wins the nomination, the Republican can defeat him in the Fall , and she can come back from the dead again in four years to become president
The Clintons believe in breaking the rules, making new rules, and changing the rules when the rules don't suit them. No matter how many times the media or others declare them close to death, they rise up and fight another day. They are definitely some kind of monster that cannot die by normal political means. The rules of nature, ethics, and civility that apply to normal humans don't apply to them. They reject the traditional Democratic rules of campaigning, and resort to the rules of Karl Rove, another monster.
If that doesn't make them monsters, I don't know what does. And if somebody doesn't stop these monsters, they are liable to destroy the hopes and dreams of a lot of young, middle aged and older Democrats, as well as the entire Democratic Party.
Clinton's Ohio and Texas victories, with a huge assist from the press and the comedy programs, and Clinton's "working the refs" strategy, insisting the press (the refs) have been unfair to her, have brought the Clinton zombies back to life. These people refuse to die, no matter what they have to do to revive themselves, nor whom or what they take down with them.
When Bill Clinton was impeached, he refused to leave, refused to apologize, refused to acknowledge what he had done to his wife, until he could no longer sustain the lies, and ultimately to the country and the candidacy of Al Gore. And on the day of the impeachment he had no shame, holding a rally on the White House lawn.
Yes, the impeachment was overkill, but I am beginning to understand what the Republicans have apparently understood all along, you can't kill these people's political power by normal means. They are the undead, and even if you hold a mirror or a crucifix up to them, they simply grab one of their associates and block the effect of the dangerous item. They find a way to survive.
And now Hillary is following the template provided by her husband. Hillary Clinton's inevitable nomination was seriously damaged after Iowa. So what did she do? She cried on television, talked all soft and feminine and then, after winning New Hampshire, said she had "found her voice," as if she was a political neophyte who had never spoken in public before. What she meant, of course, was that she had found the perfect phony voice for the right moment.
Now she has won three of four states that held primaries on March 4th and everyone is touting her comeback. But we really should examine how she did it.
She did it with lies, smears, distortions, fear-mongering, working the refs, and more false personas. She also accepted an assist from Rush Limbaugh, who by encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary may be responsible for up to five percent of her vote in Texas.
She lied about Barack's accomplishments, saying all that could be compared to her years of experience and McCain's years of experience was a single speech. She completely dismissed his years in the Illinois legislature and his years in the Senate, only one term short of hers. All together, his legislative experience is longer than hers. He, of course, has never been First Lady, but do we really think Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush or Rosalynn Carter would make good presidents because of their experience planting flowers and meeting foreign women?
She also made sure that picture of Barack in tribal dress got out into the media. Then she went on 60 Minutes and answered Steve Kroft, who asked if she believed that Obama was a Muslim, with a qualified answer. "I take him at his word," she said. And then insisted he was a Christian "as far as I know." She added a smile to make her obvious hedge seem like a sincere statement of support for her rival. This was exactly what she needed to say to the voters of Southern Ohio who are still quite racist and susceptible to fear-mongering. Remember, Ohio went in the Bush column in 2004, either because the voters there were duped by his fear message or because their Republican Secretary of State disenfranchised a sufficient number of African Americans to allow Bush to steal the state's electoral votes.
Then she distorted Obama's position on NAFTA, saying he was winking to the Canadians about his real intention to use his voiced opposition to NAFTA to get votes, all the while having no intention of changing it. Belatedly, we find out that it was actually the Clinton administration that was winking to Canada, but it bears hardly a mention in the media.
She also ran an ad that played to people's fears about Obama's readiness to be commander in chief. She mocked his appeal to hope and cooperation in a display the likes of which I have never seen in a campaign. Interestingly, she decided to run against hope, in complete contrast to what her husband advises: "If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." Obviously, the Clintons don't mean a thing they say. If they say to vote for hope they only mean it if they are the candidates of hope. If they try to stoke your fear, it is because that is the only way they can win. This should be a clear sign that the only thing these two stand for is their own power.
She also went on Saturday Night Live and acted like a real person with a sense of humor and for good measure appeared on The Daily Show. For this election, she didn't find her voice but worked hard to convince everyone she found her funny bone. Alas, it was all part of the strategy to do and say whatever it takes to bury Obama.
But none of this is funny. It is truly frightening that this woman is willing to do whatever it takes to win:
Use fear tactics
Change her persona as many times as necessary
Say whatever will work whether it's true or not
Agree to the rules to not seat delegates in Michigan and Florida and then claim the rules should be changed, and the delegates seated because she "won" there (in Michigan Obama was not even on the ballot, and in Florida many voters stayed home because they knew it wouldn't count)
Know how each state chooses delegates – some by primary and some by caucus – and then insist primaries should count more than caucuses (because she lost all the caucuses), and big states more than small states (because she only wins big states).
Praise the Republican opponent as more ready to be president than your Democratic rival because that way if her rival wins the nomination, the Republican can defeat him in the Fall , and she can come back from the dead again in four years to become president
The Clintons believe in breaking the rules, making new rules, and changing the rules when the rules don't suit them. No matter how many times the media or others declare them close to death, they rise up and fight another day. They are definitely some kind of monster that cannot die by normal political means. The rules of nature, ethics, and civility that apply to normal humans don't apply to them. They reject the traditional Democratic rules of campaigning, and resort to the rules of Karl Rove, another monster.
If that doesn't make them monsters, I don't know what does. And if somebody doesn't stop these monsters, they are liable to destroy the hopes and dreams of a lot of young, middle aged and older Democrats, as well as the entire Democratic Party.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Hillary's real fire wall strategy
These past four days the media have finally decided to give Hillary Clinton what she has been whining about and begging for: total negative coverage of every tiny little issue that could slow down Barack Obama's momentum.
They have fallen for her 3 a.m. phone call add wherein a phone rings five or more times at 3 a.m., supposedly in the White House, and a be-jeweled Hillary apparently answers it and saves the country from Muslims or Maritans, it's impossible to tell which. Then they piled on about some memo from the Canadian embassy about NAFTA. Then Hillary compared her experience and John McCain's experience to Barack's "one speech in 2002." Now her negative ads and speeches, many of them completely trivial as well as dishonest, seem to have finally slowed his momentum and may enable her to win Texas and Ohio.
However, even if her disgusting tactics work, she may still not be able to secure enough delegates to win the nomination. Obama may pull it out with his combination of pledged and super delegates no matter what Clinton does to try to take it from him.
So if the math does not favor her, and no matter what happens today she still loses the nomination, what has this tirade of accusations and smears done for her? It certainly doesn't help her party and the down ticket races on the Dem side. It certainly doesn't help Obama. In fact it gives ammunition to John McCain and might possibly help him defeat Obama, just as her husband's unconscionable behavior helped Bush Jr. defeat Gore in 2000.
However, the up side for Hillary is this simple: if she knows she will lose the nomination, but her attacks can wound Obama enough to allow McCain to defeat him in 2008, Hillary can come back in 2012, say "I told you so" and get the nomination for herself.
When will the Democratic Party, and those who vote in the primaries, realize how toxic the Clintons are for the Party? When we finally be able to bury the two-headed Clinton monster?
They have fallen for her 3 a.m. phone call add wherein a phone rings five or more times at 3 a.m., supposedly in the White House, and a be-jeweled Hillary apparently answers it and saves the country from Muslims or Maritans, it's impossible to tell which. Then they piled on about some memo from the Canadian embassy about NAFTA. Then Hillary compared her experience and John McCain's experience to Barack's "one speech in 2002." Now her negative ads and speeches, many of them completely trivial as well as dishonest, seem to have finally slowed his momentum and may enable her to win Texas and Ohio.
However, even if her disgusting tactics work, she may still not be able to secure enough delegates to win the nomination. Obama may pull it out with his combination of pledged and super delegates no matter what Clinton does to try to take it from him.
So if the math does not favor her, and no matter what happens today she still loses the nomination, what has this tirade of accusations and smears done for her? It certainly doesn't help her party and the down ticket races on the Dem side. It certainly doesn't help Obama. In fact it gives ammunition to John McCain and might possibly help him defeat Obama, just as her husband's unconscionable behavior helped Bush Jr. defeat Gore in 2000.
However, the up side for Hillary is this simple: if she knows she will lose the nomination, but her attacks can wound Obama enough to allow McCain to defeat him in 2008, Hillary can come back in 2012, say "I told you so" and get the nomination for herself.
When will the Democratic Party, and those who vote in the primaries, realize how toxic the Clintons are for the Party? When we finally be able to bury the two-headed Clinton monster?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)