Yesterday the right wing media nuts were shell shocked by Obama's speech, and if they didn't offer a polished critique, it was only because they were stunned.
Twenty four hours have passed and they now have their right wing talking points, and they are as ugly as they come.
Limbaugh is castigating and making fun of Jeremiah Wright. Pat Buchanan is condemning Wright as a hateful man and condemning Obama for not walking out of his church with outrage. Lou Dobbs is echoing their sentiments. And Hannity, that head without a brain, is saying Obama is a racist and an anti-Semite.
There you have it. The swift boating this time around will not be smears and outright lies about a candidate's military record. This time the right wing-nut hit job will be religious and racial. Obama's religion is somehow all wrong, his pastor too angry, his outrage against his pastor insufficient, his separation from him incomplete. And of course this is all so because Obama's pastor, like Obama, is black.
To a large group of white men in this country, black equals frightening. A large group of white men in this country are showing themselves to be ignorant, immature and insecure.
I knew that having a black nominee for the presidency would inflame racial hatred among white men, that it would threaten their manhood and bring out their barely sublimated white supremacism, but I was unprepared for it to erupt this soon and this viciously.
I am appalled and frightened by a certain category of white men in this country who are now speaking openly and in blatant racist terms against a distinguished, intelligent, dignified and accomplished man who cares enough about this country to be away from his family and even risk his life to make it a better place. I can only hope that enough white men will stand up and condemn this as loudly and vehemently as possible - not just men who are liberal and democratic, but men who are conservative and republican.
I'm no fan of Justice Clarence Thomas, but his words keep coming to mind: This is a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks."
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
A long, long way to go
The one thing Obama's speech has done is stop the repetition of the sound bites from his former pastor, which were played endlessly on the cable channels. Now these bloviating chatters on the news networks have some other sound bites to replay. However, many of them replay segments of Barack's magnificient speech only to criticize it or question people like Pat Buchanan (who as far as I can tell has never been right about anything in the political arena) about whether it will help or hurt him politically.
One thing that I find interesting and even scandalous about the media coverage of this entire dust-up is that the media treated the black pastor Jeremiah Wright completely differently than it treated the large number of white right wing preachers who have said equally if not more outrageous things over the years. When Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell had that pleasant little conversation in September of 2001 about how America deserved 9/11 because of the behavior of its citizens, it was replayed a number of times, but not nearly as many as times as the words of Jeremiah Wright. And Robertson and Falwell continued to be commentators on the cable networks long after that little interchange. No one asked anyone who sat in their churches or universities to disavow their words. No one asked political candidates to distance themselves from them, and in this election season, Mitt Romney proudly stood next to Robertson to receive his endorsement. At that time, no one questioned Romney's judgment, mostly because the American right wing, biased as it is against Mormons, were all too happy too see Romney genuflect before one of their mad preachers.
And how about McCain's embrace of John Hagee, the man who gets thousands of Americans to dance in the aisles in support of Israel (in order to bring about the End Times in which the Jews will be massacred), and who describes the Catholic Church as a "whore?" Hagee also reportedly blamed Hurricane Katrina on a gay pride parade that was to be held in New Orleans the week after the hurricane struck. This is some pretty crazy stuff, yet we do not see or hear these sound bites repeated over and over, with McCain asked to denounce them.
And how about McCain's embrace of Rod Parsley, who not only rejects the separation of church and state, but also said that America was founded to destroy Islam? Why do we not hear these sound bites over and over?
Because there is a double standard.
Because if you are a Democrat, your religious affiliation is somehow suspect, your preachers somehow over the top. And if you are a black Democrat, it is even worse. Recall, if you have ever had the stomach to listen, how Rush Limbaugh sarcastically exaggerates and thus mocks the word "Reverend" whenever he invokes the name of Jesse Jackson.
Because if you are a Republican, it doesn't matter how crazy your pastors are, how insane their rantings, as long as they wear a flag pin, love war, and claim to want the Christian Church (well, only the right kind of Christian Church) to rule over America. If you are a Republican and an evangelical, you can apparently say and do anything you want.
Because Republicans think they have a monopoly on religion and they own God. They claim to know the mind of God, to speak for God, and to pass judgment in God's name. The arrogance is mind-boggling.
And the press has bought into this. The press barely criticizes Republican religious rantings, because, well, you just don't do that. Republican preachers are exempt from media criticism.
Listen to the speeches of John Hagee and compare them to the sermons of Jeremiah Wright. Hagee has said just as many if not more outrageous things, yet white anger is not as verboten as black anger, even the anger of a black minister.
The anger of white Republican ministers is godly. The anger of black Democratic ministers is satanic and unpatriotic.
Never mind that the role of a prophet is to afflict the comfortable. Never mind that the United States of America, with its history of violence, arrogance, and intervention in areas of the world where it has no business intervening, sometimes needs affliction.
Never mind. No matter how accurate they may be, no matter how gifted or skilled, blacks must be put in their place – black preachers and black candidates.
And now that Barack Obama has not been put in his place, now that he has shown he can rise above the fray and give a different kind of speech, conservatives are rushing to manufacture new reasons to condemn him. Rush Limbaugh insists he is now the "black candidate," implying that being the black candidate will doom his chances. Is that not overtly racist?
If this whole thing (from the endless replay of Wright's remarks to the critique of Obama's speech) doesn't smack of racism, I don't know what does. And how about the fact that while the media was pouncing on Obama for words his minister said, the words of the white candidate, words that showed a profound ignorance of foreign affairs (McCain repeated several times the obviously false claim that Iran is training al Qaeda, until Joe Lieberman finally leaned over and told him he was mistaken) were glossed over? Is the obvious ignorance of the Republican candidate less meaningful than the angry words of a candidate's preacher? Apparently so. Republicans are allowed to be ignorant of the most significant foreign policy facts, but a Democrat whose IQ and knowledge outshines any Republican, is deemed not sufficiently patriotic to be president because his minister said some outrageous things. Underneath this veneer, however, the reality is as Rush Limbaugh hints, that to some Obama is deemed unacceptable for the presidency simply because he is black.
We may not have white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains any more, but we definitely still have white preachers and black preachers, white candidates and black candidates, and the black preachers and black candidates are still treated completely differently than the white candidates.
What a petty, stupid people we are!
One thing that I find interesting and even scandalous about the media coverage of this entire dust-up is that the media treated the black pastor Jeremiah Wright completely differently than it treated the large number of white right wing preachers who have said equally if not more outrageous things over the years. When Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell had that pleasant little conversation in September of 2001 about how America deserved 9/11 because of the behavior of its citizens, it was replayed a number of times, but not nearly as many as times as the words of Jeremiah Wright. And Robertson and Falwell continued to be commentators on the cable networks long after that little interchange. No one asked anyone who sat in their churches or universities to disavow their words. No one asked political candidates to distance themselves from them, and in this election season, Mitt Romney proudly stood next to Robertson to receive his endorsement. At that time, no one questioned Romney's judgment, mostly because the American right wing, biased as it is against Mormons, were all too happy too see Romney genuflect before one of their mad preachers.
And how about McCain's embrace of John Hagee, the man who gets thousands of Americans to dance in the aisles in support of Israel (in order to bring about the End Times in which the Jews will be massacred), and who describes the Catholic Church as a "whore?" Hagee also reportedly blamed Hurricane Katrina on a gay pride parade that was to be held in New Orleans the week after the hurricane struck. This is some pretty crazy stuff, yet we do not see or hear these sound bites repeated over and over, with McCain asked to denounce them.
And how about McCain's embrace of Rod Parsley, who not only rejects the separation of church and state, but also said that America was founded to destroy Islam? Why do we not hear these sound bites over and over?
Because there is a double standard.
Because if you are a Democrat, your religious affiliation is somehow suspect, your preachers somehow over the top. And if you are a black Democrat, it is even worse. Recall, if you have ever had the stomach to listen, how Rush Limbaugh sarcastically exaggerates and thus mocks the word "Reverend" whenever he invokes the name of Jesse Jackson.
Because if you are a Republican, it doesn't matter how crazy your pastors are, how insane their rantings, as long as they wear a flag pin, love war, and claim to want the Christian Church (well, only the right kind of Christian Church) to rule over America. If you are a Republican and an evangelical, you can apparently say and do anything you want.
Because Republicans think they have a monopoly on religion and they own God. They claim to know the mind of God, to speak for God, and to pass judgment in God's name. The arrogance is mind-boggling.
And the press has bought into this. The press barely criticizes Republican religious rantings, because, well, you just don't do that. Republican preachers are exempt from media criticism.
Listen to the speeches of John Hagee and compare them to the sermons of Jeremiah Wright. Hagee has said just as many if not more outrageous things, yet white anger is not as verboten as black anger, even the anger of a black minister.
The anger of white Republican ministers is godly. The anger of black Democratic ministers is satanic and unpatriotic.
Never mind that the role of a prophet is to afflict the comfortable. Never mind that the United States of America, with its history of violence, arrogance, and intervention in areas of the world where it has no business intervening, sometimes needs affliction.
Never mind. No matter how accurate they may be, no matter how gifted or skilled, blacks must be put in their place – black preachers and black candidates.
And now that Barack Obama has not been put in his place, now that he has shown he can rise above the fray and give a different kind of speech, conservatives are rushing to manufacture new reasons to condemn him. Rush Limbaugh insists he is now the "black candidate," implying that being the black candidate will doom his chances. Is that not overtly racist?
If this whole thing (from the endless replay of Wright's remarks to the critique of Obama's speech) doesn't smack of racism, I don't know what does. And how about the fact that while the media was pouncing on Obama for words his minister said, the words of the white candidate, words that showed a profound ignorance of foreign affairs (McCain repeated several times the obviously false claim that Iran is training al Qaeda, until Joe Lieberman finally leaned over and told him he was mistaken) were glossed over? Is the obvious ignorance of the Republican candidate less meaningful than the angry words of a candidate's preacher? Apparently so. Republicans are allowed to be ignorant of the most significant foreign policy facts, but a Democrat whose IQ and knowledge outshines any Republican, is deemed not sufficiently patriotic to be president because his minister said some outrageous things. Underneath this veneer, however, the reality is as Rush Limbaugh hints, that to some Obama is deemed unacceptable for the presidency simply because he is black.
We may not have white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains any more, but we definitely still have white preachers and black preachers, white candidates and black candidates, and the black preachers and black candidates are still treated completely differently than the white candidates.
What a petty, stupid people we are!
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Lifting us up
I just finished watching the first two episodes of HBO's John Adams and it was an interesting documentary to view on the same day as Barack Obama's magnificent speech reminding us what the Founding Fathers left unfinished when they declared independence from Great Britain, and thus began the United States of America, in 1776.
It also saddens me to see how far from civility our politics has veered since that time.
Of course there were disagreements, some almost impossible to reconcile, but through it all the representatives of the colonies remained civil, all of them searching for the best possible course of action to save their land, their families, and their liberties from a despotic king. They all had enormous courage, knowing they could be hanged for their bold actions, but they went ahead anyway, believing there could be no other way.
At one point in the documentary, after a contentious vote, one of the representatives said the expected and politically correct "God save the king." At which, Thomas Jefferson, normally quiet during the proceedings, said "God damn the king."
I thought, of course, of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's long time pastor whose "God damn America" has reverberated across the airways these past few days, threatening to sink Obama's candidacy for the presidency.
At a time when it was treason to damn the king, Jefferson's frustration with the behavior of the crown led him to utter these words that could have sent him to the gallows. Yet today, when we think of Jefferson we do not hear these words. We hear only the words of the Declaration of Independence, which he penned shortly afterwards.
I'm sure Jeremiah Wright has said many inspiring words, as Barack Obama reminded us today. Yet his entire ministry has been reduced to a few frustration induced angry and passionate sound bites, shown endlessly on television by the corporate media as they seek to destroy the candidacy of the first viable African American presidential candidate.
How disgusting political campaigns have become in this once great country! How utterly contemptible it has been on the part of the media, which seeks ratings in the tarnishing of this young orator and lawmaker, and the crazed right wing big mouths of this country, who care nothing for the country and its people, but think only of themselves, their power, and the ascendancy of their failed and empty ideology.
Barack Obama gave a brilliant speech today, one that will be read by students of history for hundreds of years. Whether or not he wins the nomination, whether or not he survives the Clinton attempt to wrest it from him by political innuendo and intrigue, whether or not the people choose another empty headed Republican president who cannot match the intellect and spirit of this man, Barack Obama has shown us the best of America. He has shown us we can be better, stronger, kinder, more hopeful, and more united. He said things today no one has said before, and no one could say better, and he has lifted us up even as his enemies try desperately to bring him down.
The petty radio personalities, the envious Clinton strategists and supporters, and the desperate right wing nuts will continue to mock and denigrate him, but it is too late. Whether or not he becomes president, he has called us to be a better people, a better nation.
It will our great loss if we do not choose him as our leader.
It also saddens me to see how far from civility our politics has veered since that time.
Of course there were disagreements, some almost impossible to reconcile, but through it all the representatives of the colonies remained civil, all of them searching for the best possible course of action to save their land, their families, and their liberties from a despotic king. They all had enormous courage, knowing they could be hanged for their bold actions, but they went ahead anyway, believing there could be no other way.
At one point in the documentary, after a contentious vote, one of the representatives said the expected and politically correct "God save the king." At which, Thomas Jefferson, normally quiet during the proceedings, said "God damn the king."
I thought, of course, of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's long time pastor whose "God damn America" has reverberated across the airways these past few days, threatening to sink Obama's candidacy for the presidency.
At a time when it was treason to damn the king, Jefferson's frustration with the behavior of the crown led him to utter these words that could have sent him to the gallows. Yet today, when we think of Jefferson we do not hear these words. We hear only the words of the Declaration of Independence, which he penned shortly afterwards.
I'm sure Jeremiah Wright has said many inspiring words, as Barack Obama reminded us today. Yet his entire ministry has been reduced to a few frustration induced angry and passionate sound bites, shown endlessly on television by the corporate media as they seek to destroy the candidacy of the first viable African American presidential candidate.
How disgusting political campaigns have become in this once great country! How utterly contemptible it has been on the part of the media, which seeks ratings in the tarnishing of this young orator and lawmaker, and the crazed right wing big mouths of this country, who care nothing for the country and its people, but think only of themselves, their power, and the ascendancy of their failed and empty ideology.
Barack Obama gave a brilliant speech today, one that will be read by students of history for hundreds of years. Whether or not he wins the nomination, whether or not he survives the Clinton attempt to wrest it from him by political innuendo and intrigue, whether or not the people choose another empty headed Republican president who cannot match the intellect and spirit of this man, Barack Obama has shown us the best of America. He has shown us we can be better, stronger, kinder, more hopeful, and more united. He said things today no one has said before, and no one could say better, and he has lifted us up even as his enemies try desperately to bring him down.
The petty radio personalities, the envious Clinton strategists and supporters, and the desperate right wing nuts will continue to mock and denigrate him, but it is too late. Whether or not he becomes president, he has called us to be a better people, a better nation.
It will our great loss if we do not choose him as our leader.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The angry sermons of Jeremiah Wright
Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has been condemned for giving fiery, angry sermons that criticized and even condemned America for its treatment of African Americans as well as its foreign policies that led to some fanatics attacking us on 9/11. Obama himself is being attacked for not having distanced himself from the church and condemned Wright earlier.
One thing I think a lot of people are missing is that Wright's angry sermon after 9/11 was given when a lot of people were angry. He was not a politician, not speaking to a national audience. He was talking to his African American flock that had known terrorism of one variety or another for generations. He was speaking in a language few if any white churches are familiar with and he was coming from an attempt to understand 9/11, and to put it into a context his congregation could understand.
It has been a long time since the Emancipation Proclomation, and a lot of whites think slavery and discrimination ended then, but any African American can tell you they still face discrimination. The recent subprime meltdown, for example, is a testimonial to the fact that far more blacks were targeted for unfair loans than whites. And the candidacy of Obama has brought racism to the fore, even from his opponent on the Democratic side. Angry sermons in African American churches should therefore not surprise or horrify us.
It has also been a long time since 9/11 and a lot of us have forgotten how angry many of us were, and how we were searching to understand what had happened and why. Some of us (like Bush) put all the blame on Islam and a handful of militants. Other of us, including me, saw a bigger picture in failings of our government and foreign policies that caused "blowback." This is what Rev. Wright was saying in that sermon after 9/11.
I went back into my own writings from that time and found an article I wrote shortly after 9/11. I include it here. It is full of anger.
********************************************************************************
First shock, then horror, then grief. Finally anger. I’m angry!
Naturally, most of my anger is directed towards the terrorists who, in their fanaticism and ignorance, their inhumanity and evil, killed thousands of Americans and visitors from other countries, and destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of others. I’m angry because they robbed countless children of their parents, parents of their children, husbands of their wives and wives of their husbands. They took away aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends, fiances, boyfriends and girlfriends.
I’m angry because these foreign invaders robbed us all of our security. How can we ever again trust - as we once did - in the safety of our airplanes, the stability of our high rise buildings, the purity of our water and air, the hearts, minds and intentions of some of those walking freely among us, using the civil liberties we so generously extend to them to hurt us? Oh, we will say in a burst of patriotism that we can’t let the terrorists win by being afraid, but those are words. We are afraid!
I’m outraged at a fanatical wealthy Muslim whose name invades every newspaper, magazine and television news broadcast - Osama bin Ladin, the man now hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. I loathe his protestations of Islamic piety which contradict everything true faith in God teaches, and the Taliban who harbor him and match him in their cruel, indiscriminate violence against their own people, especially their women.
But I’m not just angry at the terrorists. The value of justifiable anger is that it forces one to think and urges one to action. My anger calls on me to look, not only at others but also at myself, not only at other nations and religions, but also at my own. And so my anger is directed far beyond the 19 hijackers and the cells of Islamic fundamentalists all around the world who even today continue to conspire against the United States, Israel, and western culture. I am also angry at those closer to home.
I’m angry at the intelligence agencies for failing us. Perhaps that’s unfair, but it now appears that the CIA, FBI and other agencies whom we count on to keep us protected, knew for a long time about the dangers of terrorism and still did not prevent this horror. I’m angry at budget cuts and regulations which prevented these agencies from doing their jobs as well as they could have.
I’m angry at our political leaders who focused so much on protecting our borders against drug dealers and illegal immigrants that they allowed madmen from the middle east to enter our country and stay for years to plan their evil deeds. Why did we have a very visible “war on drugs” long before we focused on terrorism?
I’m angry at Republicans for spewing so much hate against President Clinton, and spending so much valuable time examining his sex life, that they neglected the work of intelligence and counter terrorism and at the same time gave our enemies reason to believe we were a frivolous people, an easy target.
I’m angry at Democrats and Republicans for prolonging the recent presidential election and leaving our country in limbo for so many months. In the wake of the deaths of over three thousand people, I’m angry at our pettiness.
I’m angry at years of short sighted foreign policy - both Republican and Democrat - that has given power and arms to our current enemies and cost the lives of so many military and civilians, all in an effort to promote our current interests. Didn’t we help Saddam Hussein in his fight against Iran and didn’t that only give him the ammunition he needed to fight us a few years later? Didn’t we support the Taliban against the Soviet Union? When will we learn?
I’m angry at the owners of a few flight schools who were more interested in making money teaching Arab men to fly “but not take off and land,” than in notifying authorities of such suspicious requests. Again, it’s probably an unfair accusation, but anger is there nonetheless.
I’m angry at the media for becoming more a purveyor of entertainment than an essential source of needed information. While the plot to destroy America was being hatched, surely the biggest story of the past fifty years, the media were busy playing Sherlock Holmes in the case of Gary Condit and the missing intern. Where were the brilliant investigative journalists when we really needed them? Now the media is fully engaged, each television network obsessed with the story of September 11 and America’s plans to respond, some giving music and a title to their coverage, as if the events of the past weeks are a mini-series. What rationale, I ask, is behind CNN calling their coverage America’s “New War” as if current events have to do with fashion or the promotion of a new product?
I am angry at the complacency and blindness of the masses of American people, including myself, who care more about their latest trip to McDonald’s or the prestige of the university - or even preschool - they wish their children to attend than they do about their fellow human beings on the other side of the world who have neither food nor water, let alone any education. In fact, it is both poverty and ignorance that allows a few mad leaders to build hatred among their uneducated followers, hatred that targets an entire culture.
I’m angry at everyone in this country - from the politicians to the car manufacturers - who refused to develop alternate sources of energy so that we could stop our dependency on corrupt dictatorships in the middle east for oil to feed our gas guzzling SUVs.
I’m angry at all the good Muslims who did not speak against those who have hijacked their religion for their own purposes. They complain now that they are being discriminated against, but they shouldn’t really be surprised. If in months and years past they had loudly and passionately condemned those who plot murder and destruction while professing to be devout Muslims, Americans could make a distinction. But they remained silent while they allowed radical murderers to define their religion, worship in their mosques and collect money from them to commit murder.
I’m angry at all religious fundamentalists, not just the Islamic variety. From the crusades and inquisition, undertakings performed in the name of Christ, to the militant leaders of the pro-life movement who inspire men to kill doctors, religious fundamentalists bring violence and hate to the world. Is the killing of a doctor by a “Christian” any less a violation of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” than the act of a suicide bomber? Genuine holy people do not murder human beings, nor say, as did Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson, that a people deserve to be murdered. Those who kill in the name of God, Yahweh or Allah are anything but holy. They may be fervent, passionate believers in something, but it is related neither to God nor to holiness.
My anger, however, does not dim my love for my country. Americans may sometimes be frivolous and arrogant, but we can be a great people. We look at all sides of an issue; we tolerate multiple viewpoints; we have freedom of speech and religion; we care for our elderly and our sick. Large numbers of our citizens provide health care and food to our poor as well as the poor all around the world where we are welcome. We rescue those in danger, even giving our lives to save others, and we give generously to victims of disasters. No one who is paying attention to the stories of the past three weeks can deny that America is a nation of heroes who would sacrifice their lives for those they do not even know.
But we have a dark side. We export music and movies which some parts of the world see as evil. To them, our freedom of expression is proof we are the great Satan. Why must we continue to show this side of ourselves? Must we, in the name of artistic expression and freedom of speech, produce pornographic movies and rock songs espousing violence? Would our country suffer without them? After all, while we were going to the movies and watching fictional thrillers and spy stories, complete with special effects pyrotechnics, flesh and blood men were planning the real thing. Even though we abhor state sponsored censorship, can we not censor ourselves and present a better picture of our goodness to the world?
Must we also continue to be so greedy? On a daily basis, the bottom line in America is always money. While that has made us a wealthy nation it has also made others envy and hate us. Must our corporations care so much about huge profits that they refuse to pay a living wage to Americans and instead take advantage of the poverty of other nations to pay a pittance to workers there? Must they pollute environments and create 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases while they pressure our government not to sign the Kyoto environmental treaty, leading President Bush to say “I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy or hurt American workers”? He might as well have said “Screw you, countries of the world, we want to drive our SUV’s, build our mansions and get rich.” But are our workers and our economy any more important than those of any other country? Must we insist on being the richest nation in the world? Don’t we understand that as our wealth grows, the envy of others grows as well? Yes we are generous, but we have given a small amount of our own money when we could have helped other nations become prosperous too.
I’m angry that we unwittingly gave the terrorists the weapons to attack us. They used our technology, our airplanes, our flight training, probably even our money. They took advantage of our trusting natures, our friendliness, our willingness to welcome foreigners and accept immigrants and tourists. And they used some of our exports of popular culture to propagandize against us, build religious fervor and recruit young men to commit suicidal/homicidal acts. I am angry at the frivolous, greedy, selfish, narcissistic and immoral side of our culture which - to the Islamic world - masks our seriousness, our generosity and our kindness.
Finally, I am angry because my life, the lives of my children and grandchildren, and America itself will never be the same. Most Americans aren’t striving to be rich or famous. All most of them want is to be with their families, to love them and keep them as safe as possible, to do the work they need to do, to walk down the street without fear, to have enough money to live in a home and buy weekly groceries and to be able to see a doctor when they are sick. Most human beings around the world want the same things. While many citizens of the world have never had those simple luxuries, we in American have, and today, for the first time in my life, I am worried that this could change.
Terrorism could destroy everything - our security, our economy, our environment, our freedom, our ability to protect our families. The attack of September 11 has already had an impact. And to some extent, those who have grasped for superfluous material wealth, unlimited sexual freedom, hedonistic personal pleasures, excessive power and celebrity and even questionable “artistic expression” have presented a vision of America to the madmen of the world which has given them a fanatical justification to plot our destruction.
While I condemn Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who so callously stated that we deserved this horrendous attack because of our immorality, I nevertheless am angry at those in America who lure and are lured by so much that contradicts the values we once stood for. America, the land and the people I love, did not deserve this. So, in addition to waging a war against terrorism, America must realize that the rest of the world is watching us. We can be a good role model or we can be ugly Americans. We can give all people a reason to love and admire us or to hate and condemn us.
While we root out those lunatics who would kill themselves and others in a twisted and rabid sense of God’s will, we must also face the choice before us. We can educate ourselves about those who view the world from a different perspective, and reevaluate our values, our foreign policy and our priorities. We can export our goodness instead of our vacuous popular culture, use our enormous resources to lead and help the world, protect the environment and focus on the things that really matter, or we can remain self-indulgent, capricious and complacent.
What is called for now is a new American dream, not the one that is limited to our shores and concerned about economic success, but one that includes the rest of the world. We can no longer afford to be a nation that thinks only of its own citizens. We cannot remain rugged individualists and single-minded entrepreneurs. Nor can some of our citizens continue to insist that we are a “Christian nation” that must convert others to our beliefs.
Our new American dream must be world peace, tolerance among believers of all the world’s religions, and cooperation and understanding among nations. We must listen to those abroad who hate us and envy us. We may not agree with them, we may believe they have misjudged us, we do not have to give in to their demands, but we must listen nonetheless. You don’t have to agree with someone to listen to them. We must digest their words and look at ourselves. Yes, it’s time for us to defend ourselves and put an end to terrorism, but it’s also time for us to examine our national conscience.
One thing I think a lot of people are missing is that Wright's angry sermon after 9/11 was given when a lot of people were angry. He was not a politician, not speaking to a national audience. He was talking to his African American flock that had known terrorism of one variety or another for generations. He was speaking in a language few if any white churches are familiar with and he was coming from an attempt to understand 9/11, and to put it into a context his congregation could understand.
It has been a long time since the Emancipation Proclomation, and a lot of whites think slavery and discrimination ended then, but any African American can tell you they still face discrimination. The recent subprime meltdown, for example, is a testimonial to the fact that far more blacks were targeted for unfair loans than whites. And the candidacy of Obama has brought racism to the fore, even from his opponent on the Democratic side. Angry sermons in African American churches should therefore not surprise or horrify us.
It has also been a long time since 9/11 and a lot of us have forgotten how angry many of us were, and how we were searching to understand what had happened and why. Some of us (like Bush) put all the blame on Islam and a handful of militants. Other of us, including me, saw a bigger picture in failings of our government and foreign policies that caused "blowback." This is what Rev. Wright was saying in that sermon after 9/11.
I went back into my own writings from that time and found an article I wrote shortly after 9/11. I include it here. It is full of anger.
********************************************************************************
First shock, then horror, then grief. Finally anger. I’m angry!
Naturally, most of my anger is directed towards the terrorists who, in their fanaticism and ignorance, their inhumanity and evil, killed thousands of Americans and visitors from other countries, and destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of others. I’m angry because they robbed countless children of their parents, parents of their children, husbands of their wives and wives of their husbands. They took away aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends, fiances, boyfriends and girlfriends.
I’m angry because these foreign invaders robbed us all of our security. How can we ever again trust - as we once did - in the safety of our airplanes, the stability of our high rise buildings, the purity of our water and air, the hearts, minds and intentions of some of those walking freely among us, using the civil liberties we so generously extend to them to hurt us? Oh, we will say in a burst of patriotism that we can’t let the terrorists win by being afraid, but those are words. We are afraid!
I’m outraged at a fanatical wealthy Muslim whose name invades every newspaper, magazine and television news broadcast - Osama bin Ladin, the man now hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. I loathe his protestations of Islamic piety which contradict everything true faith in God teaches, and the Taliban who harbor him and match him in their cruel, indiscriminate violence against their own people, especially their women.
But I’m not just angry at the terrorists. The value of justifiable anger is that it forces one to think and urges one to action. My anger calls on me to look, not only at others but also at myself, not only at other nations and religions, but also at my own. And so my anger is directed far beyond the 19 hijackers and the cells of Islamic fundamentalists all around the world who even today continue to conspire against the United States, Israel, and western culture. I am also angry at those closer to home.
I’m angry at the intelligence agencies for failing us. Perhaps that’s unfair, but it now appears that the CIA, FBI and other agencies whom we count on to keep us protected, knew for a long time about the dangers of terrorism and still did not prevent this horror. I’m angry at budget cuts and regulations which prevented these agencies from doing their jobs as well as they could have.
I’m angry at our political leaders who focused so much on protecting our borders against drug dealers and illegal immigrants that they allowed madmen from the middle east to enter our country and stay for years to plan their evil deeds. Why did we have a very visible “war on drugs” long before we focused on terrorism?
I’m angry at Republicans for spewing so much hate against President Clinton, and spending so much valuable time examining his sex life, that they neglected the work of intelligence and counter terrorism and at the same time gave our enemies reason to believe we were a frivolous people, an easy target.
I’m angry at Democrats and Republicans for prolonging the recent presidential election and leaving our country in limbo for so many months. In the wake of the deaths of over three thousand people, I’m angry at our pettiness.
I’m angry at years of short sighted foreign policy - both Republican and Democrat - that has given power and arms to our current enemies and cost the lives of so many military and civilians, all in an effort to promote our current interests. Didn’t we help Saddam Hussein in his fight against Iran and didn’t that only give him the ammunition he needed to fight us a few years later? Didn’t we support the Taliban against the Soviet Union? When will we learn?
I’m angry at the owners of a few flight schools who were more interested in making money teaching Arab men to fly “but not take off and land,” than in notifying authorities of such suspicious requests. Again, it’s probably an unfair accusation, but anger is there nonetheless.
I’m angry at the media for becoming more a purveyor of entertainment than an essential source of needed information. While the plot to destroy America was being hatched, surely the biggest story of the past fifty years, the media were busy playing Sherlock Holmes in the case of Gary Condit and the missing intern. Where were the brilliant investigative journalists when we really needed them? Now the media is fully engaged, each television network obsessed with the story of September 11 and America’s plans to respond, some giving music and a title to their coverage, as if the events of the past weeks are a mini-series. What rationale, I ask, is behind CNN calling their coverage America’s “New War” as if current events have to do with fashion or the promotion of a new product?
I am angry at the complacency and blindness of the masses of American people, including myself, who care more about their latest trip to McDonald’s or the prestige of the university - or even preschool - they wish their children to attend than they do about their fellow human beings on the other side of the world who have neither food nor water, let alone any education. In fact, it is both poverty and ignorance that allows a few mad leaders to build hatred among their uneducated followers, hatred that targets an entire culture.
I’m angry at everyone in this country - from the politicians to the car manufacturers - who refused to develop alternate sources of energy so that we could stop our dependency on corrupt dictatorships in the middle east for oil to feed our gas guzzling SUVs.
I’m angry at all the good Muslims who did not speak against those who have hijacked their religion for their own purposes. They complain now that they are being discriminated against, but they shouldn’t really be surprised. If in months and years past they had loudly and passionately condemned those who plot murder and destruction while professing to be devout Muslims, Americans could make a distinction. But they remained silent while they allowed radical murderers to define their religion, worship in their mosques and collect money from them to commit murder.
I’m angry at all religious fundamentalists, not just the Islamic variety. From the crusades and inquisition, undertakings performed in the name of Christ, to the militant leaders of the pro-life movement who inspire men to kill doctors, religious fundamentalists bring violence and hate to the world. Is the killing of a doctor by a “Christian” any less a violation of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” than the act of a suicide bomber? Genuine holy people do not murder human beings, nor say, as did Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson, that a people deserve to be murdered. Those who kill in the name of God, Yahweh or Allah are anything but holy. They may be fervent, passionate believers in something, but it is related neither to God nor to holiness.
My anger, however, does not dim my love for my country. Americans may sometimes be frivolous and arrogant, but we can be a great people. We look at all sides of an issue; we tolerate multiple viewpoints; we have freedom of speech and religion; we care for our elderly and our sick. Large numbers of our citizens provide health care and food to our poor as well as the poor all around the world where we are welcome. We rescue those in danger, even giving our lives to save others, and we give generously to victims of disasters. No one who is paying attention to the stories of the past three weeks can deny that America is a nation of heroes who would sacrifice their lives for those they do not even know.
But we have a dark side. We export music and movies which some parts of the world see as evil. To them, our freedom of expression is proof we are the great Satan. Why must we continue to show this side of ourselves? Must we, in the name of artistic expression and freedom of speech, produce pornographic movies and rock songs espousing violence? Would our country suffer without them? After all, while we were going to the movies and watching fictional thrillers and spy stories, complete with special effects pyrotechnics, flesh and blood men were planning the real thing. Even though we abhor state sponsored censorship, can we not censor ourselves and present a better picture of our goodness to the world?
Must we also continue to be so greedy? On a daily basis, the bottom line in America is always money. While that has made us a wealthy nation it has also made others envy and hate us. Must our corporations care so much about huge profits that they refuse to pay a living wage to Americans and instead take advantage of the poverty of other nations to pay a pittance to workers there? Must they pollute environments and create 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases while they pressure our government not to sign the Kyoto environmental treaty, leading President Bush to say “I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy or hurt American workers”? He might as well have said “Screw you, countries of the world, we want to drive our SUV’s, build our mansions and get rich.” But are our workers and our economy any more important than those of any other country? Must we insist on being the richest nation in the world? Don’t we understand that as our wealth grows, the envy of others grows as well? Yes we are generous, but we have given a small amount of our own money when we could have helped other nations become prosperous too.
I’m angry that we unwittingly gave the terrorists the weapons to attack us. They used our technology, our airplanes, our flight training, probably even our money. They took advantage of our trusting natures, our friendliness, our willingness to welcome foreigners and accept immigrants and tourists. And they used some of our exports of popular culture to propagandize against us, build religious fervor and recruit young men to commit suicidal/homicidal acts. I am angry at the frivolous, greedy, selfish, narcissistic and immoral side of our culture which - to the Islamic world - masks our seriousness, our generosity and our kindness.
Finally, I am angry because my life, the lives of my children and grandchildren, and America itself will never be the same. Most Americans aren’t striving to be rich or famous. All most of them want is to be with their families, to love them and keep them as safe as possible, to do the work they need to do, to walk down the street without fear, to have enough money to live in a home and buy weekly groceries and to be able to see a doctor when they are sick. Most human beings around the world want the same things. While many citizens of the world have never had those simple luxuries, we in American have, and today, for the first time in my life, I am worried that this could change.
Terrorism could destroy everything - our security, our economy, our environment, our freedom, our ability to protect our families. The attack of September 11 has already had an impact. And to some extent, those who have grasped for superfluous material wealth, unlimited sexual freedom, hedonistic personal pleasures, excessive power and celebrity and even questionable “artistic expression” have presented a vision of America to the madmen of the world which has given them a fanatical justification to plot our destruction.
While I condemn Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who so callously stated that we deserved this horrendous attack because of our immorality, I nevertheless am angry at those in America who lure and are lured by so much that contradicts the values we once stood for. America, the land and the people I love, did not deserve this. So, in addition to waging a war against terrorism, America must realize that the rest of the world is watching us. We can be a good role model or we can be ugly Americans. We can give all people a reason to love and admire us or to hate and condemn us.
While we root out those lunatics who would kill themselves and others in a twisted and rabid sense of God’s will, we must also face the choice before us. We can educate ourselves about those who view the world from a different perspective, and reevaluate our values, our foreign policy and our priorities. We can export our goodness instead of our vacuous popular culture, use our enormous resources to lead and help the world, protect the environment and focus on the things that really matter, or we can remain self-indulgent, capricious and complacent.
What is called for now is a new American dream, not the one that is limited to our shores and concerned about economic success, but one that includes the rest of the world. We can no longer afford to be a nation that thinks only of its own citizens. We cannot remain rugged individualists and single-minded entrepreneurs. Nor can some of our citizens continue to insist that we are a “Christian nation” that must convert others to our beliefs.
Our new American dream must be world peace, tolerance among believers of all the world’s religions, and cooperation and understanding among nations. We must listen to those abroad who hate us and envy us. We may not agree with them, we may believe they have misjudged us, we do not have to give in to their demands, but we must listen nonetheless. You don’t have to agree with someone to listen to them. We must digest their words and look at ourselves. Yes, it’s time for us to defend ourselves and put an end to terrorism, but it’s also time for us to examine our national conscience.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Will they kill hope again?
For a few weeks I thought maybe I was wrong.
For a few weeks I thought my original belief that Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate - and would be assured the nomination because of their support - was going to be disproven by the power of the popular movement surrounding Barack Obama.
For a few weeks I thought maybe hope would win, maybe the people would prevail, maybe we were heading to an epic change in America that would signal a real return to democracy.
For a few weeks I contemplated that this might actually be a tranformational election, one in which the country would finally be baptized in the waters of civil rights and inclusiveness and equality and at last atone for the original sins of slavery and inequality that have so infected this country until this very day.
For a few weeks I rejoiced that the ugly politics of Bush-Clinton, of Rove and Attwater, of Hannity and Limbaugh, might finally be over and the people would not be fooled again.
For a few weeks I imagined a country united by a Christian, half black, half white, young and brilliant orator who preached hope and unity and change.
For a few weeks I held what now seems to be a delusional hope.
Prior to Barack Obama's entrance into the race I held the cynical view that the establishment (corporations and the political elite) choose the nominees of each party. It isn't hard to see how they do it – they provide the money, manipulate the news, determine the story lines, and focus on what takes down one candidate and what elevates another.
They did it in 2000 – focusing on stupid and false story lines like the one about Gore insisting he "invented the internet" and ignoring the stories that might have taken down Bush – like his avoidance of military service, his arrests, his total ignorance of domestic and foreign policy, and his mythical religious conversion. Then they failed to report that the "ordinary citizens" demanding a stop of the recount in Florida were actually Bush staffers sent in to create a false outrage. When long after the Supreme Court unconstitutionally anointed Bush president, they buried on the back pages of newspapers the reality that a recount would have given the state and the presidency to Gore.
They did it in 2004 – broadcasting the Swift Boat lies as if they were truth, allowing the false stories surrounding Kerry's military service in Vietnam to grow like a cancer until no treatment could make them go away. They did not look into the multiple false red terror alerts that happened almost weekly prior to the election, and magically disappeared once the vote was held. They then ignored the stories of the manipulation of the vote in Ohio which once again gave the presidency to the worst candidate in the history of the country.
And now they have chosen their favored candidates: McCain and Clinton. The press loves McCain and boosted him into the nomination with their favorable, hero-worshipping coverage. And while the press really doesn't like Clinton, their bosses do, and so the ugly racist stories about Obama are now coming forward.
So the airways and the blogosphere are full of stories about Obama's pastor, stories that indicate he is a black separatist, an angry black man, a man who does not love his country. The earlier stories, the ones about Obama being a Muslim, couldn't stop him, so now the story has changed. Obama is no longer rumored to be a Muslim, now he is said to embrace a view of America that is hateful and critical and unpatriotic. He may be a Christian, but he is a black Christian, a Christian whose views threaten white Christians, making him a dangerous black man.
Never mind that what Obama's pastor said is literally true, that Hillary Clinton, for instance, doesn't know what it is to be a black man, and that 9/11 happened because of the violent foreign policy American has perpetrated on the world. He said politically incorrect things you are not allowed to say if you are connected in any way to a presidential candidate.
Well, that's not actually true. You are allowed to say politically incorrect things if you are connected to a favored Republican political candidate. McCain's minister supporters are allowed to say 9/11 was God's punishment for abortionists, gays, lesbians, feminists, and the ACLU. They are allowed to say Katrina was God's punishment because of the gay pride parades and the gay lifestyle in New Orleans. They are allowed to say that the Catholic Church is "The Great Whore."
McCain is allowed to publicly and enthusiastically accept the endorsements of men whose views are outrageous, while Obama must be attacked and shamed because he has connections ranging from none (with Farrakhan) to close (with Wright) with men who have also expressed unacceptable views. What's the difference? There can only be two answers: that Obama is black, and that Obama is not the establishment candidate.
Obama is not the "dangerous black man" that some of Clinton's commercials and viral emails imply. He has no criminal past, though one Clinton staffer said people will wonder if he has ever "dealt drugs." He does not fit any of the racist stereotypes of blacks created by bigots and white supremacists. He does not even appeal to race to secure votes. In fact, Obama's campaign has consistently transcended race.
But Obama is dangerous for another reason. He is a different kind of politician. He doesn't play games with lobbyists and with the rich. He goes directly to the people and the people are responding. He wants them to join him in changing the nation and renewing its promise. With that message, he has simply won too many contests and has to be stopped. The corporations and the powerful in the country cannot afford to let an entire generation actually believe they have any say in who will be president. They must squash hope once again, as they did when they made sure Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy could not be allowed to succeed.
We will see what comes of all of this trashing of Obama. The media and the power brokers are doing their best to destroy him. So far he has maintained his cool and seems to be continuing his transcendence of it all. But voters are gullible, and dishonest and vicious appeals to racism and fear may work with enough people to destroy Obama.
If they do they will also destroy the hopes of a generation, as the assassinations in the sixties destroyed the hopes of my generation.
Hope is a fragile thing, easily dislodged. If Obama can continue to inspire his followers to hope, in spite of these ridiculous and vicious attacks, if he can prove himself to withstand the last vestiges of the original sin of this country as well as the awesome ability of the corporations to control our elections, he will truly transform this country.
We are at an epic turning point – will we go back to the old and the vicious and the ugly or will we courageously move ahead and renew this country, destroying that which divides us and turns us against each other? If Obama can lead us to do that, he will be a transformational figure, the likes of which we have not seen since FDR.
But I fear the powerful elites will not stand for it.
For a few weeks I thought my original belief that Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate - and would be assured the nomination because of their support - was going to be disproven by the power of the popular movement surrounding Barack Obama.
For a few weeks I thought maybe hope would win, maybe the people would prevail, maybe we were heading to an epic change in America that would signal a real return to democracy.
For a few weeks I contemplated that this might actually be a tranformational election, one in which the country would finally be baptized in the waters of civil rights and inclusiveness and equality and at last atone for the original sins of slavery and inequality that have so infected this country until this very day.
For a few weeks I rejoiced that the ugly politics of Bush-Clinton, of Rove and Attwater, of Hannity and Limbaugh, might finally be over and the people would not be fooled again.
For a few weeks I imagined a country united by a Christian, half black, half white, young and brilliant orator who preached hope and unity and change.
For a few weeks I held what now seems to be a delusional hope.
Prior to Barack Obama's entrance into the race I held the cynical view that the establishment (corporations and the political elite) choose the nominees of each party. It isn't hard to see how they do it – they provide the money, manipulate the news, determine the story lines, and focus on what takes down one candidate and what elevates another.
They did it in 2000 – focusing on stupid and false story lines like the one about Gore insisting he "invented the internet" and ignoring the stories that might have taken down Bush – like his avoidance of military service, his arrests, his total ignorance of domestic and foreign policy, and his mythical religious conversion. Then they failed to report that the "ordinary citizens" demanding a stop of the recount in Florida were actually Bush staffers sent in to create a false outrage. When long after the Supreme Court unconstitutionally anointed Bush president, they buried on the back pages of newspapers the reality that a recount would have given the state and the presidency to Gore.
They did it in 2004 – broadcasting the Swift Boat lies as if they were truth, allowing the false stories surrounding Kerry's military service in Vietnam to grow like a cancer until no treatment could make them go away. They did not look into the multiple false red terror alerts that happened almost weekly prior to the election, and magically disappeared once the vote was held. They then ignored the stories of the manipulation of the vote in Ohio which once again gave the presidency to the worst candidate in the history of the country.
And now they have chosen their favored candidates: McCain and Clinton. The press loves McCain and boosted him into the nomination with their favorable, hero-worshipping coverage. And while the press really doesn't like Clinton, their bosses do, and so the ugly racist stories about Obama are now coming forward.
So the airways and the blogosphere are full of stories about Obama's pastor, stories that indicate he is a black separatist, an angry black man, a man who does not love his country. The earlier stories, the ones about Obama being a Muslim, couldn't stop him, so now the story has changed. Obama is no longer rumored to be a Muslim, now he is said to embrace a view of America that is hateful and critical and unpatriotic. He may be a Christian, but he is a black Christian, a Christian whose views threaten white Christians, making him a dangerous black man.
Never mind that what Obama's pastor said is literally true, that Hillary Clinton, for instance, doesn't know what it is to be a black man, and that 9/11 happened because of the violent foreign policy American has perpetrated on the world. He said politically incorrect things you are not allowed to say if you are connected in any way to a presidential candidate.
Well, that's not actually true. You are allowed to say politically incorrect things if you are connected to a favored Republican political candidate. McCain's minister supporters are allowed to say 9/11 was God's punishment for abortionists, gays, lesbians, feminists, and the ACLU. They are allowed to say Katrina was God's punishment because of the gay pride parades and the gay lifestyle in New Orleans. They are allowed to say that the Catholic Church is "The Great Whore."
McCain is allowed to publicly and enthusiastically accept the endorsements of men whose views are outrageous, while Obama must be attacked and shamed because he has connections ranging from none (with Farrakhan) to close (with Wright) with men who have also expressed unacceptable views. What's the difference? There can only be two answers: that Obama is black, and that Obama is not the establishment candidate.
Obama is not the "dangerous black man" that some of Clinton's commercials and viral emails imply. He has no criminal past, though one Clinton staffer said people will wonder if he has ever "dealt drugs." He does not fit any of the racist stereotypes of blacks created by bigots and white supremacists. He does not even appeal to race to secure votes. In fact, Obama's campaign has consistently transcended race.
But Obama is dangerous for another reason. He is a different kind of politician. He doesn't play games with lobbyists and with the rich. He goes directly to the people and the people are responding. He wants them to join him in changing the nation and renewing its promise. With that message, he has simply won too many contests and has to be stopped. The corporations and the powerful in the country cannot afford to let an entire generation actually believe they have any say in who will be president. They must squash hope once again, as they did when they made sure Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy could not be allowed to succeed.
We will see what comes of all of this trashing of Obama. The media and the power brokers are doing their best to destroy him. So far he has maintained his cool and seems to be continuing his transcendence of it all. But voters are gullible, and dishonest and vicious appeals to racism and fear may work with enough people to destroy Obama.
If they do they will also destroy the hopes of a generation, as the assassinations in the sixties destroyed the hopes of my generation.
Hope is a fragile thing, easily dislodged. If Obama can continue to inspire his followers to hope, in spite of these ridiculous and vicious attacks, if he can prove himself to withstand the last vestiges of the original sin of this country as well as the awesome ability of the corporations to control our elections, he will truly transform this country.
We are at an epic turning point – will we go back to the old and the vicious and the ugly or will we courageously move ahead and renew this country, destroying that which divides us and turns us against each other? If Obama can lead us to do that, he will be a transformational figure, the likes of which we have not seen since FDR.
But I fear the powerful elites will not stand for it.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Politicians and wives
So Attorney General extraordinaire, now Governor of New York Elliot Spitzer, has been caught in a prostitution scandal and once again we have the spectre of hypocrisy and a powerful man thinking somehow the rules don't apply to him.
After Bill Clinton's sex scandal, most of the scandals have come from the Republican side: Mark Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Newt Gingrich, etc.
But we cannot attribute this behavior to any one party. Both Democrats and Republicans all too often get caught doing something of a sexual nature that they once condemned. There may be a lot of psychological explanations for this sort of thing, but it doesn't really matter.
Wrong is wrong. And the worst thing about it, after you deal with the betrayal of the public and one's supporters, is what this does to the spouse and the children. This is what gets my blood boiling. How dare these egotists do this to their "supposed" loved ones and then expect them to stand loyally by their sides as they apologize publicly!
The political irony of this situation, however, is interesting. Here we have a Governor of New York, Hillary's home state, and a supporter of Hillary, engaging in infidelity and lawbreaking, reminiscent of what Hillary's husband did when he was president. To the extent that it reminds us of Bill Clinton's capacity to cause trouble in the White House, we should all pay heed.
I feel sorry for Spitzer's wife, as I once felt sorry for Hillary, who as it turned out, did stand by her man. But I don't feel sorry for Hillary now. She decided to stay with her husband in spite of his public humiliation of her, not for love I think, but for the promise of power. There is no guarantee he will not humiliate her again, just as there is no guarantee Spitzer or Foley or Craig or Gingrich will reform and spare their spouses more humiliation.
Women who opt to marry powerful men beware. They often have a sense of entitlement when it comes to women, and one woman is usually not enough. And voters beware. Men who get caught doing this sort of thing once have probably done it many other times when they didn't get caught. And they will do it again. We probably haven't seen the last of Bill Clinton's infidelity, and the distraction that will bring to his wife if she is president, and for that reason alone he should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. We have big, big problems to solve in this country, and that is reason enough not to take a chance on a president who may likely have to deal with an unfaithful spouse. Fool me once.....
I'll tell you one thing. If Hillary had walked out of the White House in 1999 and divorced Bill, then run for the presidency some years later, I would be a lot more inclined to support her, as she really would be her own woman and would show both good judgment and independence.
However, this Spitzer scandal just reminds me how pitiful it is when a politician's wife stands by her man even after he has humiliated her. How on earth are women ever supposed to be taken seriously when they stick by a husband who has wiped the floor with them?
After Bill Clinton's sex scandal, most of the scandals have come from the Republican side: Mark Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Newt Gingrich, etc.
But we cannot attribute this behavior to any one party. Both Democrats and Republicans all too often get caught doing something of a sexual nature that they once condemned. There may be a lot of psychological explanations for this sort of thing, but it doesn't really matter.
Wrong is wrong. And the worst thing about it, after you deal with the betrayal of the public and one's supporters, is what this does to the spouse and the children. This is what gets my blood boiling. How dare these egotists do this to their "supposed" loved ones and then expect them to stand loyally by their sides as they apologize publicly!
The political irony of this situation, however, is interesting. Here we have a Governor of New York, Hillary's home state, and a supporter of Hillary, engaging in infidelity and lawbreaking, reminiscent of what Hillary's husband did when he was president. To the extent that it reminds us of Bill Clinton's capacity to cause trouble in the White House, we should all pay heed.
I feel sorry for Spitzer's wife, as I once felt sorry for Hillary, who as it turned out, did stand by her man. But I don't feel sorry for Hillary now. She decided to stay with her husband in spite of his public humiliation of her, not for love I think, but for the promise of power. There is no guarantee he will not humiliate her again, just as there is no guarantee Spitzer or Foley or Craig or Gingrich will reform and spare their spouses more humiliation.
Women who opt to marry powerful men beware. They often have a sense of entitlement when it comes to women, and one woman is usually not enough. And voters beware. Men who get caught doing this sort of thing once have probably done it many other times when they didn't get caught. And they will do it again. We probably haven't seen the last of Bill Clinton's infidelity, and the distraction that will bring to his wife if she is president, and for that reason alone he should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. We have big, big problems to solve in this country, and that is reason enough not to take a chance on a president who may likely have to deal with an unfaithful spouse. Fool me once.....
I'll tell you one thing. If Hillary had walked out of the White House in 1999 and divorced Bill, then run for the presidency some years later, I would be a lot more inclined to support her, as she really would be her own woman and would show both good judgment and independence.
However, this Spitzer scandal just reminds me how pitiful it is when a politician's wife stands by her man even after he has humiliated her. How on earth are women ever supposed to be taken seriously when they stick by a husband who has wiped the floor with them?
Saturday, March 8, 2008
The Clintons, Samantha Powers, and Rwanda
As noted here previously, Samantha Power, foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, Pulitzer prize winning author and Harvard professor, was forced to resign from the Obama campaign yesterday because she said something off the record (but reported anyway) that millions of Americans are thinking: Hillary Clinton is a monster.
I've seen the young Powers on television many times, mostly on alternate television programs like Democracy Now, and all of them prior to her work on the Obama campaign. She is well known among human rights and peace advocates and has often risked her life to witness and report on human rights abuses. She has more courage in her little finger than Clinton could muster in a lifetime. And now she has become a victim of the Clinton campaign's whining and fake outrage. But perhaps she was targeted for more than this simple off the record comment.
Marc Cooper, Nation magazine and Huffington Post contributer, offers insightful commentary on this story.
Then, Cooper tells me something I didn't know. Power was
Powers goes on to compare Hillary Clinton to Samatha Power:
I just saw Samantha Power comment on her resignation and the damage her comment caused. She was gracious and genuine, full of horror that her words did any harm to Obama or Clinton, and took full responsibility for her actions, which is something the Clintons simply don't do.
She is a hero, in my book, and will probably go on to do great things in the causes she believes in. She will probably also sell more books and perhaps win more Pulitzers. But the Obama campaign has lost a brilliant analyst, all because the Clintons had to destroy another of their many enemies, someone who told the truth about Bill Clinton's indifference to the genocide in Rwanda.
I've seen the young Powers on television many times, mostly on alternate television programs like Democracy Now, and all of them prior to her work on the Obama campaign. She is well known among human rights and peace advocates and has often risked her life to witness and report on human rights abuses. She has more courage in her little finger than Clinton could muster in a lifetime. And now she has become a victim of the Clinton campaign's whining and fake outrage. But perhaps she was targeted for more than this simple off the record comment.
Marc Cooper, Nation magazine and Huffington Post contributer, offers insightful commentary on this story.
In the pungently hypocritical game of American politics, this is just something outside the rules. Whether it's true, or not, matters little. Nor does it matter that the object of Power's derision has just finished spending millions on TV ads implying that Obama would be responsible for the countless deaths of millions of American children sleeping at 3 a.m. Tut, tut. Nothing monstrous about that.
Then, Cooper tells me something I didn't know. Power was
awarded the Pulitzer for her finely written and downright horrifying book A Problem From Hell which, in macabre detail, describes the calculated indifference of the Clinton administration when 800,000 Rwandans were being systematically butchered. The red phone rang and rang and rang again. I don't know where Hillary was then. But her husband and his entire experienced foreign policy team -- from the brass in the Pentagon to the congenitally feckless Secretary of State Warren Christopher -- just let it ring.
Powers goes on to compare Hillary Clinton to Samatha Power:
Therein resides the richest and saddest irony of all. Samantha Power has actually lived the sort of life that Hillary Clinton's campaign staff has, for public consumption, invented for its candidate. Though not quite 40 years old, Power has spent no time on any Wal-Mart boards but has rather dedicated her entire adult life rather tirelessly to championing humanitarian causes. She has spoken up when others were silent. She took great personal risks during the Balkan wars to witness and record and denounce the carnage (She reported that Bill Clinton intervened against the Serbs only when he felt he was losing personal credibility as a result of his inaction. "I'm getting creamed," Power quoted the then-President saying as he fretted over global consternation over his own hesitation to act).
I just saw Samantha Power comment on her resignation and the damage her comment caused. She was gracious and genuine, full of horror that her words did any harm to Obama or Clinton, and took full responsibility for her actions, which is something the Clintons simply don't do.
She is a hero, in my book, and will probably go on to do great things in the causes she believes in. She will probably also sell more books and perhaps win more Pulitzers. But the Obama campaign has lost a brilliant analyst, all because the Clintons had to destroy another of their many enemies, someone who told the truth about Bill Clinton's indifference to the genocide in Rwanda.
Not a good enough reason
I have read some blogs lately that plead with supporters of Barack Obama to support Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee.
These writers acknowledge that many of us despise Clinton (yes, I do despise her, almost as much as I despise George W. Bush) and have good reason to do so, but insist that the future of the Supreme Court is at stake and if we allow McCain to become president, he could turn the Court in a radically different direction for a generation.
I say that's not a good enough reason to vote for this shape shifting monster.
First of all, Hillary's strategy seems to be to give the presidency to McCain if she doesn't get the Democratic nomination. She doesn't seem to care that much about the Supreme Court when she says that she and McCain are both qualified to be commander in chief but Obama isn't. She is deliberately discrediting her fellow Democrat, knowing full well he is ahead of her in delegate votes and could very well be the nominee. She doesn't care. She wants the nod, and if she doesn't get it, she is willing to let McCain win so she can come back in four years. That means she is willing to let McCain appoint as many as four justices to the Supreme Court.
We should never vote for someone who is willing to help the opposition party win a national election if she can't have her own way. So our first goal is to do everything we can to deny her the nomination.
However, if Hillary becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party because she has fooled enough uneducated people or because she has manipulated the Party and the Super stupid delegates, she cannot be rewarded or we will never reform this country and its politics.
So should she steal the nomination, I suggest the following alternate strategy:
Don't stay home on election day. Go to the polls and either abstain from voting in the presidential race or vote for Nader, and vote for the Democratic nominee for the Senate in your state. Contribute as much money as you can to your Senate nominee, work for them if you can, and convince all of your friends to vote for them. The goal here would be to reach a 60+ majority in the Senate so McCain could not get the ultra conservative justices he nominates confirmed.
I realize a McCain presidency would be awful in many, many ways, but with a majority of 60 in the Senate and a large majority in the House, he would be limited in how much damage he could do. Without an effective opposition party, the Congress could de-fund the war, and allow the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. We wouldn't have our country back quite yet, but we could stop the bleeding and keep it on life support for four years, until the rest of the country is finally ready for the change that Obama represents.
Hillary Clinton, if she is the nominee, will suggest that a McCain presidency would be a continuation of the Bush administration, and that is true. But a Clinton presidency would be just as bad. Anyone who believes she is not in the pocket of lobbyists is fooling themselves. Anyone who trusts that Bill Clinton strolling around in the White House with nothing to do would be good news is simply deranged. She must be stopped, preferably before the nomination, but if necessary, after she steals it.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice, but I will never vote for his wife. I am a feminist who does not believe she is a candidate who represents me or the things I believe in. She is a product of the power elite in Washington and she wants only to grab power for herself and her lobbyist buddies. In this, she is no different from so many male presidential candidates who preceded her. This is not the change we want or need, and if she is nominated, then the American people are screwed, no matter who is elected in November.
These writers acknowledge that many of us despise Clinton (yes, I do despise her, almost as much as I despise George W. Bush) and have good reason to do so, but insist that the future of the Supreme Court is at stake and if we allow McCain to become president, he could turn the Court in a radically different direction for a generation.
I say that's not a good enough reason to vote for this shape shifting monster.
First of all, Hillary's strategy seems to be to give the presidency to McCain if she doesn't get the Democratic nomination. She doesn't seem to care that much about the Supreme Court when she says that she and McCain are both qualified to be commander in chief but Obama isn't. She is deliberately discrediting her fellow Democrat, knowing full well he is ahead of her in delegate votes and could very well be the nominee. She doesn't care. She wants the nod, and if she doesn't get it, she is willing to let McCain win so she can come back in four years. That means she is willing to let McCain appoint as many as four justices to the Supreme Court.
We should never vote for someone who is willing to help the opposition party win a national election if she can't have her own way. So our first goal is to do everything we can to deny her the nomination.
However, if Hillary becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party because she has fooled enough uneducated people or because she has manipulated the Party and the Super stupid delegates, she cannot be rewarded or we will never reform this country and its politics.
So should she steal the nomination, I suggest the following alternate strategy:
Don't stay home on election day. Go to the polls and either abstain from voting in the presidential race or vote for Nader, and vote for the Democratic nominee for the Senate in your state. Contribute as much money as you can to your Senate nominee, work for them if you can, and convince all of your friends to vote for them. The goal here would be to reach a 60+ majority in the Senate so McCain could not get the ultra conservative justices he nominates confirmed.
I realize a McCain presidency would be awful in many, many ways, but with a majority of 60 in the Senate and a large majority in the House, he would be limited in how much damage he could do. Without an effective opposition party, the Congress could de-fund the war, and allow the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. We wouldn't have our country back quite yet, but we could stop the bleeding and keep it on life support for four years, until the rest of the country is finally ready for the change that Obama represents.
Hillary Clinton, if she is the nominee, will suggest that a McCain presidency would be a continuation of the Bush administration, and that is true. But a Clinton presidency would be just as bad. Anyone who believes she is not in the pocket of lobbyists is fooling themselves. Anyone who trusts that Bill Clinton strolling around in the White House with nothing to do would be good news is simply deranged. She must be stopped, preferably before the nomination, but if necessary, after she steals it.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice, but I will never vote for his wife. I am a feminist who does not believe she is a candidate who represents me or the things I believe in. She is a product of the power elite in Washington and she wants only to grab power for herself and her lobbyist buddies. In this, she is no different from so many male presidential candidates who preceded her. This is not the change we want or need, and if she is nominated, then the American people are screwed, no matter who is elected in November.
Friday, March 7, 2008
The Clinton Monster
I probably shouldn't say this, but Samantha Powers had a point when she said Hillary Clinton was a "monster."
Clinton's Ohio and Texas victories, with a huge assist from the press and the comedy programs, and Clinton's "working the refs" strategy, insisting the press (the refs) have been unfair to her, have brought the Clinton zombies back to life. These people refuse to die, no matter what they have to do to revive themselves, nor whom or what they take down with them.
When Bill Clinton was impeached, he refused to leave, refused to apologize, refused to acknowledge what he had done to his wife, until he could no longer sustain the lies, and ultimately to the country and the candidacy of Al Gore. And on the day of the impeachment he had no shame, holding a rally on the White House lawn.
Yes, the impeachment was overkill, but I am beginning to understand what the Republicans have apparently understood all along, you can't kill these people's political power by normal means. They are the undead, and even if you hold a mirror or a crucifix up to them, they simply grab one of their associates and block the effect of the dangerous item. They find a way to survive.
And now Hillary is following the template provided by her husband. Hillary Clinton's inevitable nomination was seriously damaged after Iowa. So what did she do? She cried on television, talked all soft and feminine and then, after winning New Hampshire, said she had "found her voice," as if she was a political neophyte who had never spoken in public before. What she meant, of course, was that she had found the perfect phony voice for the right moment.
Now she has won three of four states that held primaries on March 4th and everyone is touting her comeback. But we really should examine how she did it.
She did it with lies, smears, distortions, fear-mongering, working the refs, and more false personas. She also accepted an assist from Rush Limbaugh, who by encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary may be responsible for up to five percent of her vote in Texas.
She lied about Barack's accomplishments, saying all that could be compared to her years of experience and McCain's years of experience was a single speech. She completely dismissed his years in the Illinois legislature and his years in the Senate, only one term short of hers. All together, his legislative experience is longer than hers. He, of course, has never been First Lady, but do we really think Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush or Rosalynn Carter would make good presidents because of their experience planting flowers and meeting foreign women?
She also made sure that picture of Barack in tribal dress got out into the media. Then she went on 60 Minutes and answered Steve Kroft, who asked if she believed that Obama was a Muslim, with a qualified answer. "I take him at his word," she said. And then insisted he was a Christian "as far as I know." She added a smile to make her obvious hedge seem like a sincere statement of support for her rival. This was exactly what she needed to say to the voters of Southern Ohio who are still quite racist and susceptible to fear-mongering. Remember, Ohio went in the Bush column in 2004, either because the voters there were duped by his fear message or because their Republican Secretary of State disenfranchised a sufficient number of African Americans to allow Bush to steal the state's electoral votes.
Then she distorted Obama's position on NAFTA, saying he was winking to the Canadians about his real intention to use his voiced opposition to NAFTA to get votes, all the while having no intention of changing it. Belatedly, we find out that it was actually the Clinton administration that was winking to Canada, but it bears hardly a mention in the media.
She also ran an ad that played to people's fears about Obama's readiness to be commander in chief. She mocked his appeal to hope and cooperation in a display the likes of which I have never seen in a campaign. Interestingly, she decided to run against hope, in complete contrast to what her husband advises: "If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." Obviously, the Clintons don't mean a thing they say. If they say to vote for hope they only mean it if they are the candidates of hope. If they try to stoke your fear, it is because that is the only way they can win. This should be a clear sign that the only thing these two stand for is their own power.
She also went on Saturday Night Live and acted like a real person with a sense of humor and for good measure appeared on The Daily Show. For this election, she didn't find her voice but worked hard to convince everyone she found her funny bone. Alas, it was all part of the strategy to do and say whatever it takes to bury Obama.
But none of this is funny. It is truly frightening that this woman is willing to do whatever it takes to win:
Use fear tactics
Change her persona as many times as necessary
Say whatever will work whether it's true or not
Agree to the rules to not seat delegates in Michigan and Florida and then claim the rules should be changed, and the delegates seated because she "won" there (in Michigan Obama was not even on the ballot, and in Florida many voters stayed home because they knew it wouldn't count)
Know how each state chooses delegates – some by primary and some by caucus – and then insist primaries should count more than caucuses (because she lost all the caucuses), and big states more than small states (because she only wins big states).
Praise the Republican opponent as more ready to be president than your Democratic rival because that way if her rival wins the nomination, the Republican can defeat him in the Fall , and she can come back from the dead again in four years to become president
The Clintons believe in breaking the rules, making new rules, and changing the rules when the rules don't suit them. No matter how many times the media or others declare them close to death, they rise up and fight another day. They are definitely some kind of monster that cannot die by normal political means. The rules of nature, ethics, and civility that apply to normal humans don't apply to them. They reject the traditional Democratic rules of campaigning, and resort to the rules of Karl Rove, another monster.
If that doesn't make them monsters, I don't know what does. And if somebody doesn't stop these monsters, they are liable to destroy the hopes and dreams of a lot of young, middle aged and older Democrats, as well as the entire Democratic Party.
Clinton's Ohio and Texas victories, with a huge assist from the press and the comedy programs, and Clinton's "working the refs" strategy, insisting the press (the refs) have been unfair to her, have brought the Clinton zombies back to life. These people refuse to die, no matter what they have to do to revive themselves, nor whom or what they take down with them.
When Bill Clinton was impeached, he refused to leave, refused to apologize, refused to acknowledge what he had done to his wife, until he could no longer sustain the lies, and ultimately to the country and the candidacy of Al Gore. And on the day of the impeachment he had no shame, holding a rally on the White House lawn.
Yes, the impeachment was overkill, but I am beginning to understand what the Republicans have apparently understood all along, you can't kill these people's political power by normal means. They are the undead, and even if you hold a mirror or a crucifix up to them, they simply grab one of their associates and block the effect of the dangerous item. They find a way to survive.
And now Hillary is following the template provided by her husband. Hillary Clinton's inevitable nomination was seriously damaged after Iowa. So what did she do? She cried on television, talked all soft and feminine and then, after winning New Hampshire, said she had "found her voice," as if she was a political neophyte who had never spoken in public before. What she meant, of course, was that she had found the perfect phony voice for the right moment.
Now she has won three of four states that held primaries on March 4th and everyone is touting her comeback. But we really should examine how she did it.
She did it with lies, smears, distortions, fear-mongering, working the refs, and more false personas. She also accepted an assist from Rush Limbaugh, who by encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary may be responsible for up to five percent of her vote in Texas.
She lied about Barack's accomplishments, saying all that could be compared to her years of experience and McCain's years of experience was a single speech. She completely dismissed his years in the Illinois legislature and his years in the Senate, only one term short of hers. All together, his legislative experience is longer than hers. He, of course, has never been First Lady, but do we really think Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush or Rosalynn Carter would make good presidents because of their experience planting flowers and meeting foreign women?
She also made sure that picture of Barack in tribal dress got out into the media. Then she went on 60 Minutes and answered Steve Kroft, who asked if she believed that Obama was a Muslim, with a qualified answer. "I take him at his word," she said. And then insisted he was a Christian "as far as I know." She added a smile to make her obvious hedge seem like a sincere statement of support for her rival. This was exactly what she needed to say to the voters of Southern Ohio who are still quite racist and susceptible to fear-mongering. Remember, Ohio went in the Bush column in 2004, either because the voters there were duped by his fear message or because their Republican Secretary of State disenfranchised a sufficient number of African Americans to allow Bush to steal the state's electoral votes.
Then she distorted Obama's position on NAFTA, saying he was winking to the Canadians about his real intention to use his voiced opposition to NAFTA to get votes, all the while having no intention of changing it. Belatedly, we find out that it was actually the Clinton administration that was winking to Canada, but it bears hardly a mention in the media.
She also ran an ad that played to people's fears about Obama's readiness to be commander in chief. She mocked his appeal to hope and cooperation in a display the likes of which I have never seen in a campaign. Interestingly, she decided to run against hope, in complete contrast to what her husband advises: "If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." Obviously, the Clintons don't mean a thing they say. If they say to vote for hope they only mean it if they are the candidates of hope. If they try to stoke your fear, it is because that is the only way they can win. This should be a clear sign that the only thing these two stand for is their own power.
She also went on Saturday Night Live and acted like a real person with a sense of humor and for good measure appeared on The Daily Show. For this election, she didn't find her voice but worked hard to convince everyone she found her funny bone. Alas, it was all part of the strategy to do and say whatever it takes to bury Obama.
But none of this is funny. It is truly frightening that this woman is willing to do whatever it takes to win:
Use fear tactics
Change her persona as many times as necessary
Say whatever will work whether it's true or not
Agree to the rules to not seat delegates in Michigan and Florida and then claim the rules should be changed, and the delegates seated because she "won" there (in Michigan Obama was not even on the ballot, and in Florida many voters stayed home because they knew it wouldn't count)
Know how each state chooses delegates – some by primary and some by caucus – and then insist primaries should count more than caucuses (because she lost all the caucuses), and big states more than small states (because she only wins big states).
Praise the Republican opponent as more ready to be president than your Democratic rival because that way if her rival wins the nomination, the Republican can defeat him in the Fall , and she can come back from the dead again in four years to become president
The Clintons believe in breaking the rules, making new rules, and changing the rules when the rules don't suit them. No matter how many times the media or others declare them close to death, they rise up and fight another day. They are definitely some kind of monster that cannot die by normal political means. The rules of nature, ethics, and civility that apply to normal humans don't apply to them. They reject the traditional Democratic rules of campaigning, and resort to the rules of Karl Rove, another monster.
If that doesn't make them monsters, I don't know what does. And if somebody doesn't stop these monsters, they are liable to destroy the hopes and dreams of a lot of young, middle aged and older Democrats, as well as the entire Democratic Party.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Hillary's real fire wall strategy
These past four days the media have finally decided to give Hillary Clinton what she has been whining about and begging for: total negative coverage of every tiny little issue that could slow down Barack Obama's momentum.
They have fallen for her 3 a.m. phone call add wherein a phone rings five or more times at 3 a.m., supposedly in the White House, and a be-jeweled Hillary apparently answers it and saves the country from Muslims or Maritans, it's impossible to tell which. Then they piled on about some memo from the Canadian embassy about NAFTA. Then Hillary compared her experience and John McCain's experience to Barack's "one speech in 2002." Now her negative ads and speeches, many of them completely trivial as well as dishonest, seem to have finally slowed his momentum and may enable her to win Texas and Ohio.
However, even if her disgusting tactics work, she may still not be able to secure enough delegates to win the nomination. Obama may pull it out with his combination of pledged and super delegates no matter what Clinton does to try to take it from him.
So if the math does not favor her, and no matter what happens today she still loses the nomination, what has this tirade of accusations and smears done for her? It certainly doesn't help her party and the down ticket races on the Dem side. It certainly doesn't help Obama. In fact it gives ammunition to John McCain and might possibly help him defeat Obama, just as her husband's unconscionable behavior helped Bush Jr. defeat Gore in 2000.
However, the up side for Hillary is this simple: if she knows she will lose the nomination, but her attacks can wound Obama enough to allow McCain to defeat him in 2008, Hillary can come back in 2012, say "I told you so" and get the nomination for herself.
When will the Democratic Party, and those who vote in the primaries, realize how toxic the Clintons are for the Party? When we finally be able to bury the two-headed Clinton monster?
They have fallen for her 3 a.m. phone call add wherein a phone rings five or more times at 3 a.m., supposedly in the White House, and a be-jeweled Hillary apparently answers it and saves the country from Muslims or Maritans, it's impossible to tell which. Then they piled on about some memo from the Canadian embassy about NAFTA. Then Hillary compared her experience and John McCain's experience to Barack's "one speech in 2002." Now her negative ads and speeches, many of them completely trivial as well as dishonest, seem to have finally slowed his momentum and may enable her to win Texas and Ohio.
However, even if her disgusting tactics work, she may still not be able to secure enough delegates to win the nomination. Obama may pull it out with his combination of pledged and super delegates no matter what Clinton does to try to take it from him.
So if the math does not favor her, and no matter what happens today she still loses the nomination, what has this tirade of accusations and smears done for her? It certainly doesn't help her party and the down ticket races on the Dem side. It certainly doesn't help Obama. In fact it gives ammunition to John McCain and might possibly help him defeat Obama, just as her husband's unconscionable behavior helped Bush Jr. defeat Gore in 2000.
However, the up side for Hillary is this simple: if she knows she will lose the nomination, but her attacks can wound Obama enough to allow McCain to defeat him in 2008, Hillary can come back in 2012, say "I told you so" and get the nomination for herself.
When will the Democratic Party, and those who vote in the primaries, realize how toxic the Clintons are for the Party? When we finally be able to bury the two-headed Clinton monster?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)