Getting religion out of politics

If Church and State really were separate in this country, this whole Jeremiah Wright thing would never have meant anything. Though I suppose the MSM would have had to find some other racist issue with which to destroy Obama.

But it is still a good lesson for those of us who have just about had it with religion up to our eyeballs.

Having been raised a Catholic I have certainly had my fill of organized religion. Sometimes I, like many others before me, wonder if - for all the good that religion undoubtedly does - it doesn't actually do more harm, especially when it gets inserted into governance and politics.

We learned yesterday, for instance, that 31 of 53 underage girls taken from that FLDS compound in Texas have either been pregnant or are currently pregnant. One just had a baby yesterday, while under the protection of the authorities. And who forced these pregancies on these underage girls (legally it is force when the girls are minors)? Old men, to satisfy their own lust with nubile young bodies, no matter how much they rationalize it as being a religious act. This is a horrendous violation of our laws, and hiding behind the guise of religion should not enable these dirty old men to get away with what they have been getting away with for too many years.

And then, of course, there are all those depraved priests in my church who abused boys and girls and then hid behind the black skirts of their bishops who only sent them to new parishes where they could prey on new young bodies. Sure there are some good and decent priests, but the number of pedophiles in this church is mind boggling and will remain a stain on this religion as deep as the Inquisition.

And now this attempt to use a black militant preacher, who is apparently something of a chameleon, against one of the most talented politicians in decades, just because the politician spent some Sundays in his congregation, though diasagreeing with him on many occasions as most of us have done in our own churches, shows how damaging religion can be in the public arena.

Religious people, including ministers and priests, may be no more evil or depraved than the rest of the population, you may say, but there is one difference. When you hide behind your religion, or your Roman collar or your clerical garb, or even your title of "Reverend" (which I refuse to use ever again in this blog), society gives you a pass, a kind of immunity, or benefit of the doubt because you are supposed to have god on your side.

Bull shit!

Religion is NOT a godly institution and should be given neither the benefit of the doubt nor tax breaks. Religion is a human institution like any other, subject to the same imperfections and even evil intentions of its members and practitioners.

Tax exempt status should be removed from all religions immediately and all practitioners of religion must be held accountable for all the laws they break, punished to the full extent of that law when they violate those laws. The statute of limitations should end for child sexual abuse, especially for those in positions of power over children in churches, and the topic of religion should be kept out of our political discourse. I don't care what religion you practice as long as you adhere to the laws of our land and will uphold our Constitution.

That alone must be the test for political office, not where or if you go to church, nor who your pastor is, unless you have participated with him in violations of the law.

Religion may help some people, but it can also hurt people, and with more power and more freedom apparently than any other type of institution. It is time to reign it in and make it behave according to the laws we create in a democratic society.

And it is time to remove it from our political campaigns.

Amen.

The media's double standard

Several months ago when HBO started advertising its upcoming "John Adams" miniseries on CNN and other channels, my husband and I decided to upgrade our DISH network subscription so we could get HBO and watch the series. As part of the package we also got MSNBC, which I thought was an added bonus in that we could watch Keith Olbermann.

I wasn't prepared for Joe Scarborough.

What an idiot!

For some reason (my age perhaps) I can't seem to sleep past about 4:30 in the morning. Today I was up even earlier. And when I am up and not yet inspired to write something, I channel surf to see if anything interesting is in the news. Thus I discovered "Morning Joe" which is a show with a lot of interesting guests who never really get to say anything because egomaniac Joe Scarborough, like his t.v. cousin egomaniac Chris Matthews, interrupts every guest he has with attacks on Barack Obama or stupid comments about how the fed should keep lowering interest rates forever. His female sidekick, who is supposed to be the liberal counterbalance to his conservatism, I guess, has become as idiotic as he is. Of course, he interrupts her continually as well, because as the name of the show implies, it's all about him.

Like FOX and CNN, MSNBC made Jeremiah Wright a six day (seven if you count today) story. And no one did it better than good old morning Joe.

Starting last Thursday, when Bill Moyers began this idiocy by releasing clips of the already taped interview with Wright, Joe and his sidekicks began the piling on with non-stop interviews meant to let everyone know that with the return of the Wright story, Obama was doomed. On Friday, they continued the condemnation of Wright, and Obama for not "throwing him under the bus" (the trite phrase every single pundit is using because of course they are all such lemmings they can't even come up with their own phrase). The cable shows were quieter on Saturday because the regular guys are off the air, and also because the actual interview with Wright was not controversial. But the story was still stewing in the political world, and no one had come to Obama's defense. In the meantime, McCain was condemning Obama, and ads began in some southern states using the Wright sound bites from his sermons.

Sunday evening the story expoded again when Wright spoke at the NAACP convention and put on quite a show. It was entertaining and informative, and only somewhat controversial. CNN and MSNBC ran it live as if they were following a car chase, waiting for the crash or hail of bullets from the cops. CNN had commentary for three hours.

By Monday morning, Joe and his moronic sidekicks were at it again, denouncing Wright and Obama, and saying Obama was weak and doomed and Hillary was now kicking his butt. The glee with which they spewed this nonsense was obvious. They interrupted things to show Wright's speech at the National Press Club as if it was a new car chase, one that would be even more exciting and bloody. And, of course, it was. The actual speech was fairly mild, but the Q and A made Wright look like a madman, high from the attention he was getting.

So Joe and gang were at it on Tuesday morning, ready to plan the debates between Hillary Clinton and John McCain because Obama was going to have to go back to Chicago and lick his wounds. He was now dead as a presidential candidate, according to their very astute analysis.

So when Obama finally got around to watching the video of the speech on Tuesday morning (he had been busy campaigning all day Monday and had only seen some of the transcript) he apparently exploded, and held a press conference in which he denounced and separated himself from Wright.

Did that stop the story? Of course not. This morning, Joe and buddies couldn't stop talking about it, with female sidekick asking every guest who came on if Obama's statement came too late.

Jeez!!

If anybody doesn't see a racial double standard here then they are deaf, dumb and blind.

John McCain actively solicited the endorsement of John Hagee who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and said the people of New Orleans brought the hurricane on themselves because God was angry with their depravity. He openly supports Israel based on an interpretation of one book of the Bible which supposedly says Jesus will not return until Israel occupies the entire Holy Land, even though the other part of that prophecy is that most of the Jews will die. There are numerous clips of this guy spewing his disgusting hateful ideology, yet good old morning joe never shows them, nor do any of the other networks.

The Clinton shill George Stephanopolous who loves to question Obama about Wright, also questionned McCain about Hagee, but though McCain expressed disagreement with Hagee's views, he said he was still happy to have his endorsement. That was apparently okay with George.

So why did George let McCain get away with this? Why does morning Joe not make a five day story of the disgusting and anti-American (unless you don't count New Orleans as part of America) speech of Hagee and demand that McCain do something about it, the way he demanded Obama do something?

There can be only two reasons. One is that you treat the black candidate differently than you treat the white candidate. The other is that corporate America (of which the media is the main propaganda tool) wants Obama destroyed.

In the meantime - during the six day Wright funfest, there was not a single story about any of the issues important in this primary season. Not one story on energy, including Hillary and McCain's ridiculous gas tax holiday proposals, on the housing market, the broader economy, Iraq, with its highest American death toll in over a year, or Bush's itchy trigger finger poised at Iran.

The news media neither informs nor educates us. They distract us, so that they can get their guy or gal in the White House, and get Congress to do their bidding.

Laying the sixties to rest - finally

After enjoying Jeremiah Wright's speech on Sunday night (except when he mocked John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson for their speech patterns, which seemed bizarre) I felt renewed admiration for him and his obvious intelligence and education. I thought he might add something positive to the discussion about racism in this country.

Then I heard the speech at the National Press Club, but more importantly the Q and A afterwards when he showed an ugly and destructive side of himself, a side that is arrogant, narcissistic, and apparently bent on vengeance against Obama, or else utterly stupid about how his behavior would affect Obama's candidacy. He certainly did Obama no favors with his repetition of his accusation that the government (could have) created the AIDS virus and his insistence that the media was attacking the black church.

I am a wise enough person to know what I don't know – and I don't know if Wright's rhetoric and style are simply part of one segment of the black church experience. And I am profoundly uncomfortable by all those equally ignorant white pundits who think they understand the black church experience any better than I do, each coming to the same conclusion about what a monster Rev. Wright is. (I still believe there's some racism going on here in the media.)

How damaging this is to Obama's campaign remains to be seen, and it remains to be seen if it might present Obama with another opportunity to move the nation forward. I believe he can and I am waiting to see if he does.

What I think Obama should do, what I desperately hope he can do, is use this campaign put the final nail in the coffin of the sixties.

He has to once and for all move this country out of the divisiveness and radicalism of the sixties, which are involved in the Rev. Wright flap. For nothing has defined who we have been for over forty years in this country, nothing has helped to create our current divisions and internecine rivalries, than that infamous decade in which I grew up.

Barack Obama is the only one who bury the divisiveness of the sixties, because he is the only major player on the stage right now who is of the generation that came to maturity when the sixties were over.

Let me explain. Jeremiah Wright, John McCain, and Bill and Hillary Clinton are all creatures of the sixties, people whose entire identities were developed in the chaos, rebellion, and struggles of the time. So are George W. Bush, John Kerry, and all the big players in the mainstream and cable media who seem to latch onto every figure from the sixties who emerges in every presidential campaign. And so we replay every conflict from that era every election season, and rub salt into the wounds that have never healed. All the presidential candidates but Obama are products of the sixties, and the Jeremiah Wright controversy is this season's homage to that era.

Jeremiah Wright joined the military during the Vietnam War. He was profoundly influenced by the Civil Rights struggle that reached a peak in the sixties. He still preaches black liberation theology, and as Barack Obama so accurately said, he still lives the reality of that era and has now dragged it into the presidential campaign, allowing it to be used against the only candidate ever to represent the post-sixties mentality.

John McCain was flying bombing missions over Vietnam in the sixties until his plane was shot down and he was taken prisoner. For the last three years of the sixties, and the first three of the seventies, McCain was a POW. His experience of the sixties is obviously colored by that reality. McCain represents the backlash to the sixties.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are baby boomers. Both were in college during and profoundly influenced by the sixties. Bill participated in anti-war demonstrations, traveled to Russia, and managed to avoid the draft because he "loathed the military." Hillary Clinton first worked for Goldwater, then pivoted and adopted Bill's ideals. Both remember, as do I, the intensity of that era, the positives and the negatives, and both still find themselves defined by one side in the debates of that time.

So let's talk a little more about those debates.

This is the era in which the baby boomers came to dominate social issues. This is when they marched off to college, many to avoid marching off to a war that they detested. This is when they began an antiwar movement, burned their draft cards, and helped set off a forty year divide between supporters and opponents of the Vietnam War, a divide that was resurrected as recently as four years ago when a famous anti-war veteran of the Vietnam War ran for president and was smeared by those who represented the backlash against the anti-war movement.

The anti-war movement ultimately was victorious in ending the Vietnam War, but it led to much resentment and anger on the part of the backlash that labeled war protesters as unpatriotic and blamed them for America's "loss" in that war. To this day the two sides have not reconciled and the current divide over the Iraq War is a shadow of the debate over Vietnam.

While many college age men burned their draft cards in the sixties, a few college age women were burning their bras, symbolically rejecting the system that they saw as keeping women subjugated to men, forced to accept male ideas of feminine beauty and feminine roles. Ultimately, the feminist movement won, bringing millions of women into the workplace, passing laws giving women equality in many arenas, and making it possible for a woman to finally compete for the presidency. But the anger over the legalization of abortion, the resentment of some men over what they perceived as women taking their jobs, and the social and religious conservative movement that seeks to turn back the clock on women's rights, are still alive today.

The sixties was also the time of Martin Luther King, and the ultimate victory in the fight for legal Civil Rights for African Americans. But the sixties also produced a backlash against equality and integration, and resulted in the murder not only of King, but also of Medgar Evers and Malcolm X, two powerful leaders in the African American fight for equality. This fight led to the conservative backlash, culminating in Nixon's "Southern Strategy," the Republican Party's appeal to white voters in the South who were bitter about integration. Radical groups on both sides emerged, represented by white supremacists like David Duke, and black liberation preachers like Rev. Wright.

The sixties divided this country into the coalitions we still see today. The right wing opposes some of the feminist gains, like abortion and equal pay, some of the civil rights gains, like affirmative action, and the objectives of the ongoing peace movement. During each presidential season, we see each side use some of these issues against the other.

Never before, however, has the contest been so defined by race. It was inevitable, of course, with an African American candidate coming so close to the Oval Office, but who could have predicted this? The appearance of Rev. Wright has put us into a time machine and transported us back to the rhetoric that may have made sense in the sixties but seems completely out of place now. Once again, the divisive sixties emerge to taint our election, nearly fifty years later.

The sixties tore the country apart, and those whose political views were created in that cauldron of conflict are still determining the content of our political campaigns.

There's a reason Hillary Clinton is winning over the post fifty women. The still live in the sixties with her, still clinging to the feminist fight that she so symbolizes.

There's a reason John McCain will win all the pro-war Americans, all the social conservatives, and all those who hated the radicalism of the sixties. He is the candidate who represents the glory of the Vietnam War, the bravery of a POW, and the one who never engaged in the radicalism of the sixties.

And there's a reason Obama wins all the young people, who find the sixties irrelevant and old, and all the intellectuals, who are done with the sixties and see the need to move the country past its victories and its nonsense. And there's a reason he is winning over African Americans. He is not only one of them, he represents one of them who can actually win the presidency. Until, that is, Rev. Wright emerged to throw everyone back to the radicalism of the sixties, and throw the country – and the election - into chaos once again.

Barack Obama has to remind people again, in a big way, that he does not represent anything from the sixties, that he is not only a post race candidate, but that he is a post sixties candidate, looking only to the future. He must expand on the words in his Philadelphia race speech, when he defined Wright as belonging to another era, as being part of the past, and elaborate in great detail about how and why he has a different mindset, one that will carry us into the future where we can finally put to rest the divisions that began and reached their peak in the 1960s, divisions that are always below the surface, ready to come back to life and tear us apart all over again.


The young people of today, those voters who represent the future of the Democratic Party, do not want to participate in the chaos of the sixties, It is not their fight, and because of that, they see nothing inspirational in the two sixties candidates: Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

We must all let go of the sixties. It is no longer relevant. The biggest battles have been won and we must move ahead and reconcile. If Barack Obama can take the lead, and tell Jeremiah Wright that while his rhetoric might have made sense during the nation's radical sixties decade, his time is past and he must go away, then perhaps the voters can tell John McCain and Hillary Clinton to go away.

If he doesn't, we will remain stuck for at least four more years in the sixties.

Isn't it really time to lay the sixties to rest?

Racism, courage, Wright, and Obama

I've learned a lot about racism this election season.

I've learned there is a lot more of it than I had thought, and that none of us are exempt from its influence.

I've learned that a democratic candidate, whose husband was once called, metaphorically of course, "the first black president," is also not exempt. However much they have worked for black causes, and included African Americans in their very wide circle of friends, Bill and Hillay Clinton are willing to ignore the views of African Americans as they somehow define the most important constituency in America as white working class voters who haven't gone to college. They are willing to attack Barack Obama, and thus a large swath of African American church goers, because of the harsh, isolated and out of context sound bites of his very passionate pastor.

Well the education continues. After the intial condemnation of Wright by the media, and by Hillary Clinton, Obama gave a masterful speech on race, and on the importance of coming together. That wasn't enough for Clinton - she had to attack Wright and Obama again last Tuesday.

Since then, Wright has spoken up. He spent an hour answering the questions of Bill Moyers, in a very gentle and intelligent interview. The pundits were given a few snippets ahead of time and tore the interview apart before they saw the whole thing. They've been strangely silent since the entire speech aired, hopefully because it made their ramblings look moronic.

Tonight, Wright gave another speech, this time to the NAACP, and he came on completely differently than he did in the one on one Moyers interview. He was in his most comfortable element, as the unapologetic, fiery and brilliant preacher that he is.

He educated us about differences between Americans and Africans, reminded us we are all immigrants, entertained with some song and dance, and begged us to come together, remembering that our differences are not indicative of any deficiency on the part of anyone.

Yes he was loud. So what? Is being loud a crime?

He was passionate and inspirational as he showed just how wise he is.

The man who introduced Rev. Wright gave us a little biography, reminding us all that while Cheney got five deferrments, and Bush was AWOL, Jeremiah Wright left school and enlisted in the military. If Republicans and Hillary Clinton are so concerned about how much patriotism one shows, instead of judging it by whether or not you wear a flag pin, perhaps they should think about Jeremiah Wright. Wright showed true patriotism, not the phony patriotism you wear on your lapel.

I don't know what the media and the pundits will make of the speech. By tomorrow they will have dissected it and made a pronouncement on what it will mean to Obama.

I no longer care what the pundits think, and neither should the American people. The speech and Jeremiah speak for themselves, as does Barack Obama. The American people can judge for themselves. That is what Wright trusts them to do. That is why he was not afraid to speak to them. That is what Obama trusts them to do. That is why he did not disown Rev. Wright.

True courage is saying what needs to be said, and doing what you know is right, even when you don't know what the outcome will be.

I certainly don't know how this might affect the race. I suspect the media will have a lot to do with that. They frame things the way they want to frame them.

But no one can deny that both Wright and Obama are courageous men. No one can deny that these two speeches - one by Obama and one by Wright - have contributed enormously to the discussion we must have about race and racism. Because if this presidential contest has taught me anything, it is that racism is still a festering wound in our body politic. And if we are ever to be the truly great nation that some think we are, and others just dream we might become, we must look at this wound in all of its ugliness, and start doing what we must to heal it.

That is one of the many reasons I support Barack Obama. Because of who he is, how he was raised, and what he represents, he alone among the candidates, can help us overcome the lingering pain and ugliness of racism.

And no matter how much the media, the Repulicans and their handmaiden Hillary want to slander Jeremiah Wright, the fact is that Obama has benefited from his pastor's brilliance, passion, wisdom and courage. And should we be fortunate enough to someday have Barack Obama as our president, Jeremiah Wright will be partly responsible for our good fortune.

Update: I wrote this post after I heard Jeremiah Wright speak last night at the NAACP dinner. I just finished listening to his speak at the National Press Club. The speech itself was not controversial, but the Q and A afterwards was explosive, and I fear it could pose a huge problem for Obama. I have some family responsibilities this morning, so I will have to write more about this later, but for now let me put on my psychologist's hat and say this: I saw a similarity today between Jeremiah Wright and Bill Clinton. Both are men with huge egos, prone to narcissism, and both are currently hurting their preferred candidate. Bill Clinton reacts with rage whenever his administration is criticized by Obama, and Wright is acting with mocking arrogance, and anger, because he feels he has been treated unjustly by the media, and also by Obama. Jeremiah Wright is obviously a brilliant man, as is Bill Clinton, but both have the capacity to destroy a candidate. And the media is really going to help do it in the case of Obama, because everything I said about the racism in this country still holds. We are, for instance, not getting coverage of some of the preachers who have supported and still suppport Republican candidates: Bob Jones and John Hagee, for instance, who have also said some very inflammatory things. Why are we not hearing their sermons in full, and seeing them dissected on television? I'll leave that to you to answer.

A risk worth taking

Obama is a new kind of candidate, one who could truly transform and renew the country. That is a risk worth taking.

McBush wants Hillary

John McBush, that old man who insists he is going to run a positive campaign, is out there shouting at the top of his frail lungs that Hamas is supporting Obama and that the people have a right to know.

Of course, Hamas is a terrorist organization, so if you tell people they are supporting Obama, some of the dopes in this county (and no one panders to dopes better than the Republicans) will believe Obama supports Hamas.

Obama, to the contrary, has made it very clear he condemns Hamas, as he condemns all terrorist organizations. What some terrorist organization in the Middle East thinks or wants really cannnot be known by anyone, and furthermore has nothing to do with our election.

To imply that there is any connection between Obama and Hamas is like charging Obama with treason, and McBush, who uses his reputation as a war hero to do and say anything he wants, should never go down this road. This is an absurd and a hateful accusation, but then so were the swift boat charges against John Kerry's heroism and war service.

While Hillary Clinton is implementing her kitchen sink strategy, McBush – that self-described positive campaigner, that "straight talker," that "maverick," - is using his swift boat strategy against Obama. McBush is just one more typical Republican saying one thing and doing another and counting on the ignorance of the voters not to see it.

What should we make of this double teaming against Obama – this union of a Republican and a Democrat against him? We know why Hillary is doing it. Obama is a pretender to her throne and it is driving her insane.

But why is McBush hauling out every vicious rumor imaginable against Obama, while Hillary gets a pass from him and other influential Republicans, like Rush Limbaugh, Tony Blankley, and Richard Mellon Scaife, some of whom are even praising her?

It can only mean one thing. The Republicans are terrified of an Obama candidacy and drooling over the possibility of running against Hillary.

If the Republicans were more afraid of Hillary than they were of Obama, they would be swift boating her now, so Obama could wrap up the nomination. But they are strangely silent or even complimentary of her. That should alert everyone to the truth. Obama is the most dangerous candidate, the one they don't think Republicans can beat. So they are dragging out all they have now to help Hillary and the Democrats get rid of him early.

One advantage of these attacks on Obama is that the Republicans have already played their hand. Should Obama win the nomination, we already know what the Republican smears will look like. They are already out there.

But the Republicans are holding their fire when it comes to Hillary. I think we can be confident they have tons of ammunition to use against her, but they are waiting. They won't use it now when it could defeat the candidate they want to run against. Instead, they want to defeat the stronger candidate now and they are teaming up with Hillary to do it.

I have wondered what they might have against her, and my guess is that it will be one or more bombshells. Perhaps they have evidence of Bill's infidelity after he left the White House. Revealing that will drag up all the ugliness of Monicagate and the impeachment and doom Hillary's candidacy. No one wants to go there again. Perhaps they will drag up something from her past, or some secretly taped words that will further antagonize the African American community, without whose support she cannot win. Or perhaps there are some financial improprieties.

Whatever they have, you can be sure it is something incredibly damaging. No one does smears better than Republicans, and having McBush at the top of the ticket simply lulls Democrats into a false sense of security that they can trust him to run a positive campaign. If McBush is running a negative campaign now, before the Democrats even have their nominee, what do they think he will do later, when the stakes are higher?

McBush learned his lesson in 2000 when he was smeared by his own Party. He'll never rise above the fray again, no matter what he says. Look what he's doing to Obama now. No, his 2008 campaign is liable to be uglier than the 2004 Bush campaign. And he can't wait to go after Hillary.

Reverend Wright and America's moral infants

As a follow-up to yesterday's post, in which I wondered why Bill Moyers was granting an interview to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, I add these thoughts:

I watched the interview and believe Moyers was not using it to help or hurt Obama, but to help a fellow minister who had been slandered unfairly.

I also believe Moyers' interview was in keeping with what he always does - attempt to educate people and help them see the world in all of its complexity, rather than just in sound bites.

Moyers has helped viewers see the complexity of the Iraq War, of terrorism, of poverty in America and around the world, of religion as well as atheism, of evolutionary theory and Biblical creationism, of global warming, etc.

Moyers, you see, is a different kind of Christian from many of the loud mouth "christians" who are constantly spewing their black and white "beliefs" on television.

He is unlike the many "born again" christians who never get very far past the birth stage, and who remain moral infants for their entire lives. He wants people to grow up.

What I saw on Moyers' show last night was a preacher who is definitely not a moral infant, and who insists the members of his congregation not be moral infants. If he wanted them to remain infants, he would confine himself to preaching syrupy sermons about how much God loved them or angry sermons about how much God hates gays and women who have abortions.

Instead, Jeremiah Wright challenged his parishoners, both before and after 9/11, to realize that even though a grievous wrong had been done to this country, the leaders of this country have also done grievous wrongs. What he said cannot be denied by any sentient being, no matter how much they might want to deny it.

What America did to the Native Americans and the Africans they brought to be slaves is unconscionable. And with the many wars it has engaged in, America does have blood on its hands. How can anyone deny that? They can't, unless they remain moral infants.

Moral infants don't want to see reality. They can't accept the fact that they might ever have done anything wrong. Have you ever seen a two year old accept responsibility for being "bad?" No, they try to blame someone else, and if mom punishes them, they get angry at her.

The role of the Christian religion is not just to count how many souls have been "born again," but to help those souls grow up and see their own role in the evils of the world so that they can reform and renew humanity.

9/11 was a terrible evil perpetrated on this country, but it wasn't perpetrated simply because Osama bin Laden was jealous that Americans own fancy cars and wear designer clothes. Osama bin Laden may or may not be crazy, but he made his cause very clear. He was tired of America's meddling in the Middle East, in his homeland, in which he believed they had no business.

Whether or not you believe America has a right to be in the Middle East, or had a right to incinerate hundreds of thousands of Japanese with two atomic bombs, or enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans, or slaughter hundreds of thousands of Native Americans, the fact is that these things are realities and many people in the world condemn us for them, even if we have a blind spot that does not allow us to condemn ourselves.

The job of a preacher, or a prophet, is to hold a mirror up to ourselves and help us see how we are not living according to the laws of God. Jeremiah Wright did that. He wasn't just interested in comforting his people who have been victimized by the ongoing racism of the country, and whose ancestors had been slaves, but to help them see what they must do to change America and help create a nation that rejects violence and discrimination.

Yes, some of Jeremiah Wright's words were unfortunate. But as he said, he was doing what preachers do. In some instances he may have gotten carried away. He wasn't timid. But he wasn't wrong.

It's hard to grow up, as a human being and as a person of faith. Judging by the hysterical reaction to Jeremiah Wright's words, not enough people in this country have done it.

What is he doing?

Bill Moyers is televising an interview with Reverend Jeremiah Wright on tonight's Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS.

I usually watch the Journal, and imagine I am one of about three who do so. It isn't a highly viewed program, and it is not viewed at all by people who are not progressives.

It is likely to have a much larger audience tonight, however, as the program released some clips from the pre-taped show that has had the cable show pundits' panties in a twist. Everyone on those shows is saying what a disaster this is for Obama, to bring up this controversy again, and they are using the clips to further criticize Obama.

In one, for instance, Wright responds to Moyers' question about how he felt when Obama distanced himself from him. "He does what he does and I do what I do," Wright said, adding that he (Wright) was a pastor, and Obama a politican. There appeared to be no negative connotation to the quote, but once again, it was taken out of context. To people like Joe Scarborough, though, who transformed Wright's words into "Obama is just a TYPICAL politican," Wright was "throwing him under the bus."

I admit I don't know what Moyers is doing here. If indeed this is an interview that will hurt Obama (and we haven't yet seen the whole interview so we don't know that) why is he doing it? Is he a shill for Hillary?

We know that before he became a journalist, Moyers was a political operative in the Johnson White House, and largely responsible for the little girl with the daisy ad. So he can be one tough strategist. This could be a deliberate attempt to resurrect the Wright controversy to hurt Obama and help Clinton.

We also know, however, that after he left the Johnson White House, and especially recently, Moyers has been a highly progressive journalist and television personality who has promoted the causes and ideas most akin to those of Obama. Is it possible that the clips he released are the most controversial, meant to get attention from the nitwit pundits on cable news? Is it possible that the interview, in its entirely, is far more favorable to Obama, and that Moyers has outsmarted the pro-Hillary, pro-McCain pundits by releasing some very misleading clips which will get Obama's critics to watch?

Or is Moyers, an ordained minister, not being political, but rather simply charitable to a fellow minister, giving him a chance at redemption?

Or finally, has Moyers now morphed into a publicity seeking television star, and this is only about ratings?

We'll see tonight, as I and a lot of new viewers will tune in.

It was never going to be easy

I and other Obama supporters should have known better.

First, we got all fired up over his Iowa surprise win. Then we got ecstatic over his 11 state victories in a row. Then we rationalized that his loss in Texas really got him more delegates so it wasn't a big deal.

But each time we had reason to hope that this time it would be different, that this time the American people were moving past race, ready to finally put the nail in the Clinton political coffin, and really ready to change the way politics is done in this country, we got shot down by the old tactics, the slash and burn campiagns of past years, the pathology of the Clintons, and the lingering racism of far too many voters.

We should have known that, no matter how different and ecxiting our candidate was, no matter how reminiscent of JFK or RFK, no matter how brilliant and seemingly post-racial, it was never going to be easy for him to secure the nomination. And no matter how many times we try to convince ourselves that he still can, that there are enough good and decent people who will not vote against him because he is black, we inevitably come up against three realities: Far too many older women - women who were there when feminism first began - want to see a female president before they die; far too many white voters still will not vote for a (1/2) black candidate, no matter how brilliant or post racial; and the narcissism and power madness of the Clintons will stop at nothing to destroy Obama.

After Pennsylvania, much of the press seems to be rooting for her and gunning for Obama and exit polls from Pennsylvania show just how powerful a factor race still is. The very fact that a sizable number of her supporters say they will vote for McCain if she is not the nominee is really all you need to know about how much of a factor race plays in elections in this country.

If these were loyal democrats who simply preferred Clinton to Obama, but found themselves faced with an Obama victory in the primaries, they would either vote for Obama, or simply sit out in November, especially since there is so little difference between their two policies. But because so many are willing to vote for someone with a completely different political philosophy which amounts to a continuation of Bush policy, there can be only one reason they would move from Clinton to McCain. They will only vote for the white candidate.

Unlike Clinton voters who say they will not vote for Obama, the far fewer Obama voters who say they will not vote for Clinton, do so mainly because they are appalled by her tactics, many of them subtle appeals to the racism of her supporters. She has so violated the trust they once had in her and her husband, so much trust that they thought of him as the "first black president," that it would be morally wrong - in their minds - to support this tactical but subtle racism on the part of the Clinton campaign.

While we never thought it would be easy to nominate and elect Obama, we underestimated the amount of racism still lingering in the nation. And we certainly weren't prepard for it to be used by the Clintons.

Barack can still win the nomination, but it becomes harder and harder as she attacks him with subtle racial digs, lies and distorts her ability to win, and as the MSM piles on and repeats her propaganda. And should she wrest the nomination from him by her sleazy disgusting tactics, it will be a long time before a viable African American candidate comes forward again. The Clinton tactics, backed up the main stream media, have made it clear. No black candidate will be treated fairly because no black candidate will ever be allowed to win as long as they have anything to say about it.

The Clintons are phonies, with no hearts, and with political plasma running through their veins. Nothing else matters to them except winning. And if that means destroying the most decent and gifted (but black) politician to come along in decades, they will do it.

They will destroy the country rather than allow this young, bold and charismatic leader to win what they believe is rightfully theirs. They will never give up.

If Hillary Clinton succeeds in her ugly tactics to destroy her rival and steal the nomination, using Rovian reptilian tactics, I hope with all my heart that she loses, not just the presidential race, but the next senatorial race that she wages. I hope she never again wins any political office because she has burned so many bridges behind her. I hope she and her husband have finally destroyed their legacy, because what they are doing is immoral, unconscionable, and highly destructive. They even appear willing to destroy the Party to get what they want.

I return to my original realization. It was never going to be easy, in the land that at its founding approved of slavery, the land that fought a war over whether it would be allowed to continue, the land where even though slavery was outlawed, segration and Jim Crow remained, the land where racism lives in the hearts of many Americans, not just in the south, but apparently in Ohio and Pennsylvania. (And some call this a 'Christian country?")

It was never going to be easy, and Hillary and Bill Clinton's pathological narcissism has made it even more difficult, for Obama to be the first black president.

One thing is certain after this nominating process, perhaps the only comfort we can find should Obama lose the nomination: Bill Clinton will never, ever again be called "the nation's first black president." That nonsense is over.

It all depends on what the meaning of "votes" is

The current Hillary Clinton campaign strategy could have easily been predicted back in 1999 when her husband, questioned about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, famously said "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Yesterday Hillary and surrogates started blathering about her having won more votes than Barack Obama. To her, it all depends on what the meaning of "votes" is.

While most of us who are keeping track, including Democratic Party officials, see Barack with more delegates and more of the popular vote, Hillary – like her husband – calculates things differently. She doesn't count the actual votes from some of Obama's caucus wins, and she counts the votes from both Florida and Michigan. Since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, it is impossible to even see that as a contest where votes should count. And since she agreed ahead of time that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count, she's pulling a Bill Clinton by wanting to count them now.

She's also trying to change the rules of the game – rules the Democratic Party set up and she agreed to - in other ways.

For instance, she thinks popular votes should count more than number of delegates.

She thinks the votes in large states should count more than votes in small states.

She thinks she should be nominated because she has won in the states the Dems need in November.

She thinks pledged delegates should be free to change their votes from Obama to her.

She thinks superdelegates should overrule the pledged delegates if necessary for her to win.

Some people who are calling Clinton on her dishonest tactics say she is trying to move the goal posts, making it impossible for Obama to get a touchdown and put this game away. Since Americans like to use sports analogies, let's use two more to explain what Clinton is doing.

She's saying that free throws shouldn't count in basketball because they give the shooter an unfair advantage.

She's saying that a baseball team should be able to win a game if it put more people on base, rather than got more people to home plate.

Here in America, we use sports metaphors for a reason. We like the idea of fair play, of adhering to the rules of the game. Clinton, however, is not playing by the rules. She is trying to change the rules in mid-game, and most Americans reject those kind of tactics.

She IS not playing fair. But then, I guess it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

Hillary and the "race chasm"

Simply the best article on how Hillary is using race to steal the nomination from Obama.

Check out the article by David Sirota to read his prediction regarding her tactics, and to see the graph he refers to in this quote:

To date, 42 states and the District of Columbia have voted in primaries or caucuses. Factor out the two senators’ home states (Illinois, New York and Arkansas), the two states where Edwards was a major factor (New Hampshire and Iowa) and the one state where only Clinton was on the ballot (Michigan) and you are left with 37 elections where the head-to-head Clinton-Obama matchup has been most clear. Subtract the Latino factor (a hugely important but wholly separate influence on the election) by removing the four states whose Hispanic population is over 25 percent (California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona), and you are left with 33 elections that best represent how the black-white split has impacted the campaign.

As the Race Chasm graph shows, when you chart Obama’s margin of victory or defeat against the percentage of African-Americans living in that state, a striking U trend emerges. That precipitous dip in Obama’s performance in states with a big-but-not-huge African-American population is the Race Chasm—and that chasm is no coincidence.

On the left of the graph, among the states with the smallest black population, Obama has destroyed Clinton. With the candidates differing little on issues, this trend is likely due, in part, to the fact that black-white racial politics are all but non-existent in nearly totally white states. Thus, Clinton has fewer built-in advantages. Though some of these states like Idaho or Wyoming have reputations for intolerance thanks to the occasional militia headlines, black-white interaction in these places is not a
part of people’s daily lives, nor their political decisions. Put another way, the dialect of racism—the hints of the Ferraro comment and codes of Bill Clinton’s Jesse Jackson reference, for instance—is not politically effective because such language has not historically been a significant part of the local political discussion. That’s especially true in the liberal-skewed Democratic primary.

On the right of the graph among the states with the largest black populations, Obama has also crushed Clinton. Unlike the super-white states, these states—many in the Deep South—have a long and sordid history of day-to-day, black-white racial politics, with Richard Nixon famously pioneering Republican’s “southern strategy” to maximize the racist segregationist vote in general elections. “But in the Democratic primary the black vote is so huge [in these states], it can overwhelm the white vote,” says Thomas Schaller, a political science professor at the University of Maryland—Baltimore. That black vote has gone primarily to Obama, helping him win these states by big margins.

It is in the chasm where Clinton has consistently defeated Obama. These are geographically diverse states from Ohio to Oklahoma to Massachusetts where racial politics is very much a part of the political culture, but where the black vote is too small to offset a white vote racially motivated by the Clinton campaign’s coded messages and tactics. The chasm exists in the cluster of states whose population is above 6 percent and below 17 percent black, and Clinton has won most of them by beating Obama handily among white working-class voters.

In sum, Obama has only been able to eke out victories in three states with Race Chasm demographics, where African-American populations make up more than 6 percent but less than 17 percent of the total population. And those three states provided him extra advantages: He won Illinois, his home state; Missouri, an Illinois border state; and Connecticut, a state whose Democratic electorate just two years before supported Ned Lamont’s insurgent candidacy against Joe Lieberman, and therefore had uniquely developed infrastructure and political cultures inclined to support an outsider candidacy. Meanwhile, three-quarters of all the states Clinton has won are those with Race Chasm demographics.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), a Clinton supporter, publicly acknowledged this dynamic in February. He suggested to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board that Obama’s ethnicity could prevent him from winning the state, which, at 10.6 percent black, falls squarely in the Race Chasm.

Destroying the Democratic Party

I was born in Ohio and now live in California, two states that gave more of their delegates to Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama, in large part because of racism, which is still very much alive, and the pushback to sexism that is now causing a majority of democratic women to hang on to hopes for Hillary in spite of her poor chances to win the nomintion.

Clinton won in California because it was early in the campaign and because she was more well known than Obama. But she also won because women broke heavily for her and because she won the large Latino population and the smaller Asian population. Latinos flocked to Clinton, unfortunately, because of race. It is well known that Latinos do not especially like African Americans, and a sufficient number of them took that prejudice into the voting booth.

In Ohio and Pennsylvania, the racism is more overt. In exit polls, whites who said race was a factor in their choice of candidate went overwhelmingly for Clinton. Racism is alive and well in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Hillary Clinton used it to win.

Maybe Barack Obama can't win in Ohio and Pennsylvania in the general election because of the racism of the citizens. Although when pitted against the Republican, it's possible he could, especially if Hillary supported him. But while the contest is between two Democrats, Hillary Clinton wants to manipulate that racism and be the beneficiary of it. She is not interested in helping to overcome it, which she could easily do if she was willing to honor the process by which the Party chooses its nominees rather than try to make her own rules. (I think it was Chris Matthews last night on MSNBC who said the Clintons think they own the Party and can do whatever they want with it – one of the few times I've agreed with Chris Matthews.)

Hillary and Bill Clinton could educate the racist voters of Pennsylvania and Ohio by throwing their support to Obama and giving him their stamp of approval. But they are not interested in the good of the Party or the good of the country. They are not interested in ending racism in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Instead they are using the lingering and very ugly racism of white voters to regain the power Bill squandered in the nineties when he unzipped his pants in the Oval Office. And they are willing to throw overboard the 90% of blacks who favor Obama in order to woo the white racist vote.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have obviously studied the Rove playbook down to the last detail. They will create scandals against their opponent using the flimsiest of evidence and they will throw the Democrats' most loyal constituency under the bus. By pandering to gun owners, racists, and religious nuts, they are looking more and more like Republicans. What's next? Accusing Obama of murder, just as Republicans once accused Hillary of offing Vince Foster?

These are ugly people indeed. They nearly destroyed the Party in the nineties when Bill decided to lower his pants and threw the country into its lurid obsession with his sex life.

They nearly destroyed the country by giving the Republicans something to use against him in a circus that entertained their opponents, when all of them should have been focused on the threat of terrorism, which they knew was out there.

They nearly destroyed the world by creating the conditions that allowed a totally incompetent man to come close enough to victory in the 2000 election to steal it. Bush was given the opportunity to throw us into two wars, turn the world against us, squander our resources, and further damage the planet. All because enough people were disgusted with Bill Clinton that they believed Bush when he said he would restore dignity to the White House.

And after all that destruction, the Clintons have returned to wreak havoc on us. I hardly recognize the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party any more. It has moved so far to the right it now touches the outer left wing of the Republican Party, which has been all but amputated.

Sexism is partly to blame for this as well. Hillary obviously has the female vote, especially females over 50. And the reason for this? Men have been so unwilling to allow women into power, so crazed by women who have ability and might show them up, so stubborn in their fantasies of keeping women subjugated, that they have created this monster Clinton, and turned women away from supporting a transcendent male candidate.

Obama, a good and decent man, a man who sees women as equals, a man who transcends race and gender and the pain racism and sexism have caused, is the recipient of feminism's final revenge within the Democratic Party.

Rush Limbaugh thought he was putting an end to feminism when he described feminists as ugly, bitter women. Well Hillary Clinton is one ugly, bitter woman. And her female supporters, having no other powerful woman to support, are willing to distort what feminism was really about and follow her right into the hell of the Rove play book. Hell hath no fury, as they say, and many women in America are ready and willing to foist this monster on the country because it’s the first time they had the opportunity to put any woman into the presidency. That's a powerful motivation and cannot be underestimated.

I still don't think she'll win the nomination, unless she is willing to nuke the Party by overturning the will of the majority (and she's willing to nuke Iran, so perhaps she is) but she and the women who have had it with men, combined with the men and women who still hate and fear blacks, can destroy the Party's chances of winning in November by completely destroying Barack Obama and with him, perhaps, the future of the Democratic Party.

What it really comes down to is this: Will the older members of the Democratic Party, most notably the baby boomers, stuck in the past in their prejudices and bitterness, be able to deny a voice to the under forty voters who have moved beyond racism and sexism?

And will the Democratic Party allow this completely narcissistic and pathological couple to destroy what has long been its commitment to equality, justice, and fair play, and perhaps destroy itself in the process?

Hillary threatens nuclear war

Brits first called it the silly season, and now so do we. But it is so much more than silly.

Political campaign seasons have become idiotic, insane, and dangerous.

A Republican Candidate who ran from fighting in Vietnam labels a Veietnam war hero a coward and liar in 2004.

A Republican Campaign labels a Democratic, Christian, church-going black man a Muslim in order to scare voters in 2008. A Democratic Campaign opposing the man does nothing to condemn that nonsense because having people believe the lie helps her cause, even though she herself never goes to church.

A network asks gotcha questions that have nothing to do with the real and dangerous problems this country faces.

Pundits care more about making predictions and fueling the fight than about educating the public.

Candidates lie and distort and ruin opponents who would make far better presidents than they would.

And now this week a Democratic candidate, and you know who she is, is saying she will obliterate (read: nuke) Iran if it ever tries to launch an attack on Israel.

No candidate should be threatening nuclear attack, no matter how macho it makes them look to the college drop-out, gun toting warmongers of a rust belt state that she needs to beat a charismatic male who young people, educated people, and progressive people are working their tails off to elect.

Hillary Clinton, if elected, could turn out to more of a disaster than George Bush, just to prove she has balls.

This is the dark side of feminism, and I - a long time feminist - want no part of it. No feminist worth the name should ever in a million years threaten nuclear war. Feminism is not just about having the same pay as men, or having the same opportunities as men. Feminism is about bringing female attributes to society, and helping to bring men and women together to learn from each other and understand each other.

It is not, and never should be, about threatening nuclear war.

What on earth is she thinking?

Hillary condemns the "activist base of the Democratic Party"

Hillary Clinton recently said the following:

We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.

Leaving aside the fact that Clinton lied about MoveOn's position on Afghanistan, and that she disagrees with them (she praised them just a few months prior to this statement), Clinton's attempt to denigrate MoveOn only hurts her case.

She has been saying for quite some time now that caucuses, which she generally loses, are less important than primaries, which she sometimes wins. She says primaries include more voters and that makes them more representative.

But there is another way to look at this. It does take more effort to vote in caucuses than primaries as you have to get together with a bunch of other voters and spend more than five minutes in a voting booth. In other words, you are more likely to go if you are energized for your candidate, and less likely to go if you are not.

Obama wins caucuses because his voters are more energized and his campaign more organized to get out the caucus vote. One would think that is a good thing.

Hillary claims it is MoveOn that is making the difference in caucuses, which may or may not be true, but she has absolutely no evidence to prove that other than the fact that MoveOn has endorsed Obama. On the other hand, plenty of groups have endorsed Clinton. She has money, and supposedly a good campaign organization. So why didn't her voters turn out too? Could it be that they are less energized and less enthusiastic about her candidacy? She did refer to "voters who ACTUALLY show up to support me," which is an odd way to talk about your supporters.

In this statement Clinton is criticizing the "activist base" of the Demcratic Party. Does she realize what she is doing here? Does she realize that turning against the party's activist base will only hurt her? Is this evidence of good judgment?

Furthermore, Clinton claims that MoveOn activists intimidate her voters at caucuses, but I have heard no independent evidence to support that incendiary claim. Bill Clinton made some big fuss about it in Nevada, speaking loudly and obnoxiously as he walked through a casino, but he is a tad biased, and has been known to tell a lie or two.

Besides, Hillary keeps claiming she is tougher than Obama, that he is a whiner, and that if he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen.

As long as we're using kitchen metaphors, it seems Hillary is the proverbial pot calling the kettle...well you know the rest.

Electability 101

Is Barack Obama really unelectable, or is Hillary trying her darndest to make him so?

"Liberal media" update

It may seem a trivial point, but it is not.

On Meet the Press today, Tim Russert was asking Obama campaign chairman David Axelrod about how Obama was going to overcome the various slams on his "patriotism." He listed Obama's "offenses":

"Michelle Obama saying that she really never had pride in America until this campaign when Barack Obama was running, Barack Obama with his hands clasped in front of him rather than holding his heart during the pledge of allegiance, Barack Obama not wearing a flag pin....Barack Obama meeting with Bill Ayers, a former Weather ground under—Weatherman underground figure."

Even the way this question was phrased was offering misinformation and a biased perspective to the viewers. Michelle Obama did not say she never had pride in America until the campaign. She said "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country." There's quite a bit of nuanced difference between those two statements. Michelle was talking about her adult life, not her entire life, and she was talkking about being REALLY proud. She didn't say she never had pride, just that this was the first time she felt, as an adult, REALLY proud. It was kind of like someone saying "this is the happiest day of my life" when it is obvious the person is simply caught up in the moment and probably had many happy days in their life. But the Republicans, the Clintons, and the MSM apparently are incapable of doing nuance.

Also, Barack Obama did not have a "meeting" with Bill Ayers, currently a college professor, but formerly a radical in the sixties. He sat on a board with him, and attended a fund raiser at his home. Barack Obama has, at most, a passing acquaintance with him, but Timmy and the ABC debate moderators and Hillary Clinton seem to think anyone you have ever met is fair game to tarnish you with. Well for that matter, who is the person Hillary has had the closest relationship with for the past forty years? Bill Clinton - liar, philanderer, and impeached president. Doesn't that tarnish her a bit? And while we're at it, Obama could never say it, but I will: If Obama was supposed to walk out on Rev. Wright because of some radical words in a sermon, why didn't Hillary walk out on her husband, who cheated on her time and again, lied to her and to the American people about it, broke the law by lying under oath, and humiliated her publicly?

As for Barack Obama not "holding his heart" during the "pledge of allegience," this is a lie and Russert knows better. This was either sloppy questionning or a deliberate attempt to falsely smear Obama. Barack Obama, on one occasion that was photographed, kept his hands at his sides during the Star Spangled Banner, not during the pledge of allegience. I never put my hand over my heart during the Star Spangled Banner, and neither do most people. On the other hand, most people put their hands over their heart during the pledge of allegience. The fact that some in the picture had their hands over their hearts indicates to me they were posing as fake patriots during the anthem, not that Obama wasn't being patriotic. Maybe he didn't get the memo that said you have to do these silly things to prove how patriotic you are, even though most ordinary people don't do them and don't really expect you to. But if you can lump this lack of a phony "patriotic" display with his not wearing a flag pin, bingo! You can say he is unpatriotic.

Now for the flag pin. No one on that debate stage was wearing a flag pin. Obama has explained why he no longer wears one, and points out that for a while after 9/11 he, like many Americans did, but that he no longer considered it necessary. "Shortly after 9/11," he said, "particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism." In other words, Obama was pointing out that he had other ways of showing patriotism and was going to rely on those rather than wearing a pin, which had become a de facto symbol for supporting the Iraq War. He had the courage to be a leader, to recognize the flag pin on the members of the administration and most republicans as false patriotism, not real patriotism, and like many democrats who did the same, decided he didn't want to be part of that charade.

Even more interesting to me, though, is that no one questionned why Hillary Clinton does not wear a flag pin. If, as the original questionner some months ago asked Obama, "politicians have been wearing these since 9/11," why was it not appropriate for Hillary to wear one? Is she not a politician? Is she exempt because she's a woman? I thought it was important to her to be part of the boys club, to be treated the same as the male candidates for the presidency. I thought that's what feminists wanted. And what about all the other candidates, like John McCain, who no longer wear them?

I've been bitching for a long time now about Hillary Clinton doing the Republican's dirty work for them (as if they need any help) but it is obvious that the main stream media is doing the same.

Liberal media, my ass!

On flags and flag pins

They did it again. They questioned Barack Obama's patriotism at the debate on Tuesday because he, like most of his fellow Democrats including Hillary Clinton, does not wear a lapel pin of the American flag.

From time to time, a flap arises over the flag and political people try to use it to confirm someone's patriotism or lack of it. Occasionally, some deranged Senator or Congressperson decides we need to draft another anti-flag burning amendment, which of course, never goes anywhere because the American people are smart enough to realize the insignificance of this issue. Rush Limbaugh used to routinely accuse the Democrats of elevating symbols over substance, but when it comes to the flag, no one can manipulate symbols like Republicans.

From the President on down, nearly every male leader on the Republican side has worn a flag lapel pin ever since 9/11. Some television anchors wore them for a while, and a few still do, though most have taken them off.

After 9/11, as everyone remembers, flags appeared everywhere. I had gone to my daugher's house that day to help with her new baby, and when I arrived home I saw that my entire street was lined with flags. My home was the only one without one as I had been gone when the neighbors united in this act of solidarity, so I quickly put my own small flag (planted on my lawn the previous Fourth of July by a realtor who used it as an advertising gimic). The flags stayed there for weeks, but finally as mine became worn and weathered, I took it down. A few weeks later many of my neighbors did the same.

The initial trauma of 9/11 had passed and the hopelessness we all felt, which led to our doing the only thing we could – wave the flag – was waning, and it seemed time. But since I was the first, perhaps some of my neighbors thought me unpatriotic.

I also followed the lead of many women in my town, and made my own flag pins out of safety pins and small red, white and blue beads. They were actually quite interesting, and fun to make and I wore one for several weeks, although I often forgot to remove the pin from the previous day's clothing to put it on that day's outfit. (I suppose George W. Bush doesn't have to worry about removing a flag pin from yesterday's suit as he probably has more pins than suits and keeps one on the lapel of each jacket.)

Eventually, I stopped wearing the home made flag pins as well, no longer feeling the need to remind myself of the symbolism of the post 9/11 flags. To me, they meant that I felt a solidarity with my fellow citizens, that I mourned the loss of those who died on 9/11, and that I was united with the President and the leaders of our country in finding a way to prevent another attack. I haven't stopped feeling that solidarity, but I no longer feel in sync with the president or the leaders of the country. Their way to defend the country, and what I consider the right way to defend the country, couldn't be more at odds.

At some point, the flag no longer represented the solidarity we as a nation felt after 9/11. At some point, probably when the nation became divided in their opinions over the Iraq War, the lapel pin became a weapon used by the Republicans to tarnish as unpatriotic all those who no longer wore it.

And now it is being used in this presidential election season. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton wear a lapel pin, and I don't think McCain always wears one either. But only Barack Obama is being singled out for not wearing one. Is this a racist thing, or sexist, or what?

Do we only expect men to wear flag pins? Is it only used against Democrats? And how long will American politicians - especially Republicans - continue to wear them? On John McCain's website there is a video, and many pictures, in which he does not wear a flag pin. Do we absolve him of this requirement because of his "war hero" status?

If being a war hero means you are automatically considered a patriot, no matter what you do afterwards, then we must also consider Jeremiah Wright, who volunteered to join the Marines during the Vietnam War, a war hero.

The flag is a mere symbol. And the wearing of a flag pin, most probably manufactured in a sweat shop in China, is not the way to determine one's patriotism. Just as I and my neighbors took our flags down a few months after 9/11, so Barack Obama and many other politicians stopped wearing a flag pin after a period of time. When a symbol no longer is serving the function that it once did, it is time to discontinue using it as a symbol. John McCain does not feel the need to continue wearing a pin. Neither does Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton. Wearing a flag pin does not make you a patriot.

What makes you a patriot is believing in and promoting the values and ideals the flag stands for: freedom, liberty, justice, and equality.

Words of wisdom regarding Wright

Over on Daily Kos, Devilstower had this to say about George S.'s question to Barack Obama at last night's debate about whether Rev. Jeremiah Wright loves America as much as he does.

Who loves America? Jeremiah Wright loved it enough that while Dick Cheney was getting his string of five deferments, Wright voluntarily gave up his student deferment, left college and joined the United States Marine Corps. Wright was valedictorian of his class in Corpsman School. When asked about the sacrifices he'd made, Wright said he was inspired by the words of John Kennedy that he should "ask what he could do for his country."

And he did that at a time where there were many restaurants in this country that wouldn't serve him food, hotels where he could not get a room, neighborhoods where he could not hope to live, and whole states where he could not obtain justice. That, damn it, is how much Jeremiah Wright loves this country.

If only Barack Obama could have said this.

A letter to Pennsylvania

Dear citizens of Pennsylvania,

Most of the country has already voted in this insane primary season, but you have a chance to do something that no other state could do. You have a chance to end this thing.

I know some of you who are supporting Hillary Clinton intend to vote for her because you think you can actually revive her campaign. You think you can make history for your state by bringing the zombied corpse of her candidacy back from the dead but you would be wrong.

Hillary's campaign has been dead for quite some time now, as evidenced by the smell of decay that accompanies its hideous tactics, but it has been continuing on, pretending to be human, like the living dead in those B movies from the fifties.

I know you have problems with Barack Obama. He doesn't wear a flag pin (of course, neither does she), and he said you were bitter (and she says you are happy without jobs, money and homes). He goes to church on Sundays and hears a pastor, like all good prophets, hold the nation accountable, and doesn't get up and leave in indignation (Hillary doesn't go to church on Sundays). He made 4 million dollars last year, mostly from book sales, and that makes him an elitist. (Hillary Clinton made over 100 million dollars in the last eight years and that means she's just plain folks.)

Hillary Clinton is not going to win this nomination no matter what she, her campaign, and the establishment (who love her) try to do.

This time, the grass roots movement that tried in 2004 to nominate Howard Dean is going to nominate Barack Obama.

This time, the rest of the nation is rejecting the Republican swift boat tactics that Hillary Clinton has adopted over the past few months.

This time, the people care more about real issues than about nonsensical and media-manufactured controversies. That is why so many booed the debate moderators last night who spent 50 minutes playing gotcha, and why ABC had to stop answering the phones and shut down the comments section on their website because people were crashing the systems with angry responses to the fiasco.

So now it's up to you Pennsylvania. You can stop this destruction derby next Tuesday by voting overwhelmingly for Obama, who will eventually win the nomination no matter what you do, but who will be damaged in the fall if the Clinton campaign keeps up their ugliness in their desperate attempt to prove she is still viable. By burying the rotting corpse of the Clinton campaign you can stop this self-inflicted destruction of the Party and help defeat John McCain in November.

You can be heroes. You have a chance this year to give a big middle finger to the mainstream media, the corporations, the insiders, the filthy rich, and the Republicans who are laughing their behinds off as Hillary Clinton does their dirty work for them.

You can do it by giving Obama a victory and letting Clinton exit more gracefully than she would otherwise do. You can save her from herself and her campaign and her self-destructive husband. You can help her face the reality that she seems unwilling to face. You can help her let go of a rotting campaign and the smell of desperation. You can help restore her dignity. You can save the Party. You can help us win in November. You can save the country from John McCain and four more years of hell.

It's up to you.

We've all gone completely insane

I didn't watch the debate tonight because it was tape delayed here in California (which was an incredibly stupid decision on ABC's part although now that I know how awful it was I want to thank them) and because it was a wierd day for me.

My mom finally got the okay to go back on the experimental pill she has to take for her leukemia (she had to stop because it was depressing all of her blood counts) and while that is good news, it also means we will be back on the roller coaster - twice weekly blood tests, weekly transfusions, shots to stimulate her white blood count, heavy duty antibiotics to prevent infection, hope then fear then back to hope again.

Dealing with my mom's illness is one of the few real things I face each day. Everything else is really just bull shit.

Like tonight's debate. Gibson and Stephawatchamacallit apparently spent most of the debate asking about stupid things like flag pins, and invisible Bosnian snipers, and some "weatherman" guy Barack is supposed to know which of course makes him a dirty stinkin commie pig, or was it Rev. Wright who is supposed to have made him that, or those donors in San Francisco who were with him when he called bitter people "bitter."

My mother has a terminal disease and my father is disabled and needs to be looked after and two idiots on television are piling on so that the designated establishment candidate Hillary can have one last chance to overturn the will of the people and destroy whatever remains of our democracy after eight years of Bush crimes.

If I screamed as loud as possible would anyone hear me?

Two days ago one of my neighbors was screaming her head off and I was the only one who went outside to see who was dying. It turns out she was trying to get help because one of our extremely irresponsible neighbors once again let her dogs run loose outside and they were trying to kill a smaller dog.

No one paid any attention to her screams, so why strain my vocal cords just to express my belief that the world has gone insane?

And then there is the great papal visit. While over at my parents' house today, after I delivered dinner to them, I caught a few minutes of the pope at the D.C. basilica. He was sitting on some kind of a throne, and he had fur around his neck. Some cardinal was introducing him with the gushiest kind of flattery that I thought went out of fashion when feudalism died, but I guess not. Then he started speaking in a thick German accent, with lots of "zees" and "zats." My dad kept turning up the television because he couldn't understand the guy, but I knew it was hopeless. It wasn't that the t.v. wasn't loud enough; it was that he couldn't make out what Benedict was saying.

The camera panned around the room and all you could see were old men with either purple (bishops) or red (cardinals) beanies and black dresses, all sitting in rapt attention, even though they probably couldn't understand him either. All men. No women. All unmarried men. I could say all celibate men, but that would be misleading. I heard later that the pope promised to do everything possible to prevent another child abuse scandal. Good luck, I thought.

And then that urge to scream started up again.

As I headed home I noticed that some gas stations were now charging $4.00 a gallon.

Gas is $4.00 a gallon.
Dozens of people are still dying in Iraq.
Billions of tax dollars are being flushed down the toilet in Iraq.
Millions of Americans don't have health care.
Millions of Americans are losing their jobs, their homes, and their cars.
The planet is heating up and no one is doing much about it.
We're using up all the fish.
Priests are still molesting children.
Nuclear weapons are all over the planet.
The Israelis and the Palestinians keep killing each other.
Muslims think they have the true religion and Christians think they do, and each is willing to battle each other to the end.
Our economy is in the tank and China owns us.
The corporations call all the shots in this country.
We the people are irrelevant.
My parents are dying.

And Charlie and George think the best question they can ask a presidential candidate, who if elected will have to tackle the most difficult problems this country has ever faced, has something to do with why he doesn't wear a flag pin on his lapel.

We have all gone completely insane.

Can you hear me screaming?

Time to go, Joe

Former Democrat Joe Lieberman is bashing Obama and wondering whether he might be a Marxist, even though Obama once campaigned for him, and suggesting he (Lieberman) might get to give the keynote address at the Republican convention.

These things follow his endorsement of John McCain, and his recent trip with McCain to Iraq and other places in the Middle East, when he had to gently correct the old man every time he couldn't remember the facts.

And that follows Joe's refusal to accept the will of the democratic voters of Connecticut, who rejected him in the 2006 primary, and his decision to go forward anyway and run as an Independent. (How did Gore ever pick this guy to be his running mate in 2000?)

In each of these instances, Lieberman has shown that he has no loyalty or love for the Democratic Party and that he is willing to do anything to stay in the spotlight, no matter how it makes him look and no matter what voters think.

Joe Lieberman is an independent in name only. In his heart he is a Republican and should declare himself so.

I can think of only one reason why he doesn't. It would mean that, come November when the Democrats are likely to win a veto proof majority in the Senate, he would be relegated to a very powerless position.

Were Joe to declare as a Republican now, of course, the Senate would return to Republican hands. He could be a hero, it would seem. But a one-vote majority in the Senate would be no better for the Republicans than it currently is for the Democrats and Lieberman and his Republican brethren know that, so they are probably not pushing for him to switch sides.

Far better for Joe to continue to caucus with the Democrats. This way, the majority Dems are blamed for the Senate problems, the Repugs have a spy, and Joe can still have a committee chairmanship come next election when the Dems are sure to increase their majority.

I think, however, that if the Dems gain five or six seats in the next Congress, they ought to take away Joe's chairmanship. After all, he isn't really a Dem anymore, in name or in sentiment, and so he should not be rewarded. He probably won't go on his own, so it will take Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership of the Senate to take him aside, thank him for his service, and say:

"It's time to go, Joe."

Hillary Clinton and the subtle racism of her campaign

My husband and I have been watching the John Adams miniseries on HBO these past few weeks. In fact, we upgraded our Dish Network package just to be able to see it.

It has not disappointed. It has educated me about the characters of John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, as well as the other players in the early American nation. The sets, the costumes, and the acting are all, in my opinion, superb. Next week is the last episode and I will be sorry to have this television class in American history end.

The thing that struck me the most about this most recent episode, however, was watching the construction of the White House using slave labor. As Abigail Adams said as she stared at the horrible scene of black men and women breaking their backs to build this house which at the time they believed would never be inhabited by a black president, "nothing good can come of this."

I also watched the documentary Finding David Wilson, last Friday on MSNBC. For those who may have missed it, it was a film depicting the meeting between David Wilson, the great grandson of a former slave, and a second David Wilson, the grandson of the former slave owner. Through the film the two get to know each other, and while walking in the ruins of the fomer slave quarters, the black David Wilson realizes that the sacrifices of his ancestors had not been in vain in that their suffering ultimately led to the benefits he enjoyed as a free and equal citizen of the United States.

Yet, in spite of David Wilson's optimism and reconciliation with the family that previously owned his family, we know that racism remains in America. It may be quieter, it may not be verbalized, but it is there. It is what is behind much of Hillary Clinton's pitch to the superdelegates that Obama is not electable. When she says she is the one who can win in big states like California it is at least partly because she knows many Latinos have animosity to African Americans. And when she says only she can garner the votes of blue collar workers, or laid off workers in the rust belt, it is because she knows many of them would never vote for a black man. That this may very well be true is distressing, that Hillary Clinton would use it to defeat her African American opponent is despicable.

Instead of being part of the solution to the ongoing racism in this country, Hillary Clinton, by using Obama's race against him, however under the radar she keeps it, is part of the problem.

We Obama supporters always knew it would be an uphill battle to elect the nation's first black president. We are neither naïve nor stupid. But the one thing we always hoped was that as democrats we would all pull together and defy the odds. We hoped that a powerful ex president like Bill Clinton would get behind Obama and urge every democrat, independent and open minded republican to vote for him. And we hoped that Hillary Clinton, realizing that her chances for the nomination were slim to none, would graciously concede defeat, and lend her support to him. Only by having the support of every influential former democratic president and vice president, governor and mayor, senator and congressperson, could the Democrats hope to overcome the lingering racism in this country and send the first black president to Washington, to live in the house that was once built by slaves, men and women who could not have imagined that a man of their own race would ever inhabit it.

But Hillary and Bill Clinton have chosen not to do that. They have demeaned Obama after his win in South Carolina, attacked him in Nevada, accused him of unfair tactics, of not being black enough, of being too black (after all, he attended that black church in Chicago) and now of being elitist. As Bob Herbert so brilliantly put it in his New York Times article today, Obama's awkward explanation of why some voters in places like Pennsylvania don't vote for their economic interests and instead vote on the basis of wedge issues like religion and guns, was partly the result of his being unable or unwilling to speak the truth that some of these voters simply will not vote for a black candidate because blacks, in their minds, are inferior.

The real truth is even more distressing. Hillary Clinton, instead of using her considerable influence and power to ensure that the first black candidate in the history of the country is elected president, is doing everything she can to ensure that he isn't, and that includes using republican dog whistle tactics to get voters in her own party to vote against him. And she is doing this because all she cares about is winning.

She doesn't care about the will of the people. She doesn't care about the Democratic Party. She doesn't care about the country. And, in spite of the fact that she was once popular among African Americans, she doesn't care about race relations in this country.

I still think Obama can defeat her. And I still believe, in spite of her pitch to superdelegates, that Obama can defeat John McCain. He is one of the most skilled politicians we have seen in our lifetimes, and I think he can weather any storm the she-demon stirs up to destroy him. It won't be easy, but it can be done. And in spite of Hillary's belief that too many racist white voters will not vote for an African American, I have a little more faith than that in the American people. In spite of what may happen in Pennsylvania, there are enough Americans who have moved past the abhorrent politics of Karl Rove. There are enough Americans who are not racist. And there are enough Americans who are not threatened by the possibility of a black president.

Hillary Clinton is the one who is threatened by Obama, and if we can only defeat her, John McCain will be a piece of cake. He is an extremely flawed candidate, and I think a united Democratic Party can defeat him. Hillary's power madness, and need to overcome the humiliation she suffered during her husband's administration, is causing her to act like a desperate, unhinged rejected spouse, and she more than anyone can defeat obama's bid for the presidency.

It remains to be seen whether she will continue to encourage the racism that is smoldering under the surface so that she can defeat Obama, or if she will finally decide to be part of history by putting aside her irrational ambition and helping him win the presidency. If there is any decency under her blind ambition, her power madness, and her need to overcome the humiliation her husband dished up to her, she will ultimately do the right thing.

Otherwise, we can only conclude she has no decency. And that would make her a terrible president indeed.

Hell hath no fury like Hillary scorned

A marriage counselor's take on why Hillary Clinton is acting the way she is.

Regretting my 1992 vote

Icchh! Will this woman never go away? Now that she has mislabeled Obama an "elitist," she is throwing down shooters in a bar and telling everyone how her father taught her to shoot a gun.

This female elitist is trying desperately to show voters she is just a regular Josephine, even though she went to Yale and worked for big law firms and lived in the White House for eight years. Whew! The woman is not just a liar, she's delusional, she's living in an alternate universe.

I keep asking myself the question: What if I and millions of others like me had never voted for Bill Clinton in 1992? George Bush senior would have had four more years and then, perhaps, we could have elected a decent Democrat in 1996, someone who could have gone on to win a second term in 2000 and denied that knucklehead who calls himself "W" the presidency.

No Iraq War, no tax cuts for the wealthy, no Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court.

But "what ifs" don't change reality. We voted for Clinton in 1992 and now our chickens are truly coming home to roost as we have to endure his wife running to continue the dynasty by joining with Republicans, adopting Rovian tactics, and doing everything she can to destroy the most visionary and refreshing and intelligent candidate we have seen in decades.

I sincerely hope this latest attack will backfire and expose her for the shape-shifting monster she has become (or perhaps has always been). I hope the flesh (or makeup) on her face is finally pulled back and we see her for who she truly is - a lizard skinned opportunist with no other goal than to achieve power for herself, the party and the country be damned in the process.

If this doesn't backfire, and instead gets her the nomination, I won't make the same mistake again. I won't vote for another Clinton.

Fellow Democrats tell me this is suicide, that we must have a Democrat in the White House, and I agree. But Hillary Clinton is not a Democrat. I don't know what she is, but her tactics and her flip flops and her lies convince me that she is either a Republican in Democrat disguise (and not a very good disguise these days) or she is some terrible new hybrid, a political reptile who cannot be trusted, someone who will screw us as her husband did, as George W. Bush did, and as all corporatist presidents do, and then tell us we are not angry, not bitter, not frustrated. As she sends our jobs overseas, and gives the lobbyists what they want, she will get all smarmy and syryupy and condescending and tell us she believes in us and we have to remain optimistic.

I won't fall for that one again, and I hope you don't either.

The fact is, if we have only a choice between Clinton and McCain in November it will be no choice. We will have two candidates who will sell their souls to win, two candidates who will say and do whatever it takes to destroy each other, two candidates who will continue the destruction of the middle class.

And no matter who moves into the White House, the American people are screwed.

Muting Hillary

Early on in the Bush administration I would turn off the sound every time I saw the president's lips moving on the television. It's not that I didn't know what he was saying. I could read his words in the newspaper and online if I wanted to, but I just couldn't bear listening to his silly laugh, his dishonesty, his mangling of the English language. Nothing he ever said was reliable and I started to get sick to my stomach every time I heard his voice. As president of the United States, and the man who represented the American people to the world, he was an embarrassment.

I now feel the same way about Hillary Clinton. When the ridiculously manufactured Clinton-McCain outrage hit the news, over Obama's comments that people who have been abandoned by Washington are bitter, she gave a speech in which she adopted that voice – you know the one – the voice she used in New Hampshire after Obama cleaned her clock in Iowa – the one where she gets all soft and syrupy with that fake compassion, that fake sweetness. She said that "my opponent" thinks people are bitter. "That's not my experience," she went on, saying the people of Pennsylvania are optimistic and hard working and resilient.

What a disingenuous political hack (translate: lying opportunist) she is.

First of all, you can be bitter and still be resilient. One is a feeling, the other is a personality characteristic. You can be both bitter and hard working. Again, one is a feeling, the other is a behavior. There have been many times in my life that I felt bitter but remained hard working and resilient.

However, what happens when you are a hard working American but there is no job for you to do because Hillary Clinton's husband signed a trade deal that sent your job overseas? Might you not get a little bitter? And what happens when you are a resilient person, and you try mightily to get a new job, but there are none to be had, or you have to get three low paying jobs just to make the same income you did when you had the one job that got shipped to China or Mexico or India?

She deliberately missed the whole point of Obama's words. Of course she did. She has been trying desperately to find something she could pin on him and this was as close as she could get. And it took her a week to get her hands on the poor quality audiotape of his words at a private fundraiser. And like all true narcissists, Hillary Clinton was outraged when Obama criticized her husband's administration, and included it in his litany of administrations that left the people behind. (Narcissists react with blind rage when they are criticized.)

Didn't Hillary read the New York Times' poll reporting that 81% of Americans think America is on the wrong track? That doesn't make them optimistic. It makes them pessimistic, and angry, and yes, even bitter. Doesn't she recognize that NAFTA, a program that she supported, sent the jobs of many of these Pennsylvanians overseas? And isn't it rich that this woman who is worth many millions of dollars is calling Obama an elitist?

Obama said nothing any different than what Thomas Frank said several years ago in his book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" In it he showed how the Republican Party takes the very obvious anger and bitterness of the poor and the lower middle class voters and gets them to vote against their own economic interests by appealing to their religious beliefs (anti abortion, anti gay) and their fear that the government wants to take away their guns.

Obama may not have phrased it very well, and the comments are taken completely out of context, as they always are by the sound bite media and manipulative candidates, but what Obama said was no less true.

Republicans win elections by convincing the same voters they have economically screwed, that their real enemies are the democrats who want to take away their guns, criminals (read blacks) who deal drugs and commit crimes, illegal immigrants who steal their jobs, gays who want to convert their kids to homosexuality, and liberal feminists who want to kill their unborn babies.

This is the truth, and Obama, in answering a question about whether he believed many whites would not vote for him, talked about how and why economically depressed people turn to other issues and why they do not always vote in their best interests.

And now Hillary Clinton is joining with the Republicans in trying to convince the people screwed by NAFTA that they are resilient and optimistic and hard working and not angry or bitter. She is trying to get them once again to turn against a candidate that the Republicans are portraying as "elitist" just as they painted John Kerry as "elitist" and as they would call her "elitist" should she win the nomination.

This is part of their plan. The Republicans depress the wages of the poor and middle class, give tax breaks to the wealthiest, wage wars that enrich their buddies, send jobs overseas, and when a Democrat points out that the people might be bitter about this, and cling to their religion and guns because that is what the Republicans pretend the Democrats want to take away, Republicans say he is "elitist."

I never thought I would live long enough to see an African American be a powerful candidate for the presidency, but I was wrong. The American people may not be where they ought to be in terms of racial attitudes, but they have come a long way. However, with that welcome development, I never imagined that such a candidate might be called "elitist" by a member of his own party, a fabulously wealthy former first lady. I expect the Republicans to call Obama an elitist. After all, it's their code word for uppity black. But I did not expect it from a fellow Democrat.

If Hillary Clinton becomes the president, she will be another embarrassment. She will lie and distort and manipulate as much as George W. Bush, and she will be just as vicious as Nixon. And while she will not mangle the language like Bush does, nor do that shoulder shrugging giggle, she will use that fake smarmy, syrupy voice and talk down to the people. That is why, when I see her lips moving on television, I hit the mute button.