If you listen to Republican legislators at the underwhelming Republican convention these past few days, you understand how disciplined these guys are at message control - and how totally dishonest.
The talking points have obviously been circulated. You hear the following:
"Sarah Palin has more experience than Barack Obama."
"Sarah Palin is a maverick who fights corruption."
"Sarah Palin was thoroughly vetted."
Now I would imagine all good soldiers in movement conservatism would say these kinds of things, but even moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe are saying them. And, of course, they are all lies, as the media is and will continue to prove.
But here's the dead giveaway, the talking points that prove Repubicans are completely fabricating things. Each and every elected Republican congressman and senator is saying the following:
"People all over my district are stopping me or calling or emailing and saying how excited they are about Sarah Palin - not just Republicans, but Independents and Democrats."
"It doesn't matter if Sarah Palin was vetted or not, America is falling in love with her and her story."
"The media is sexist."
Now these three things cannot be proven or disproven. The first two will play themselves out only on election day. Then we will know if Independents and Democrats turn away from a proven visionary and leader and choose an old soldier, with memory and judgment problems, because he has chosen a hockey mom (her words, not mine, so don't cry "sexist") as his running mate.
The third talking point, that the media is sexist, just doesn't cut it. The media went after Dan Quayle too, and it wasn't because they were biased against white guys. It was because he was a surprise pick who people knew nothing about. As the press learned more that was unpleasant about him (eg. using connections to get him into the National Guard to avoid the draft) they went after him more.
The media, as well as the people, had better take a long and critical look at someone new running for one of the highest offices in the land. They have sure put Obama through the ringer for 18 months, and still are. And Obama has never once cried "racism."
Accusing the press of racism and sexism when they are doing the vetting that needs to be done, or when a campaign is failing because of bad strategy, is what losers do.
Have some in the press made sexist or racist remarks? Sure, that's still the society we live in. Does the press also go after white guys? Ask Bill Clinton how it felt the entire time he occupied the White House. Can you spell Whitewater? Or John Kerry in the last election. Does the term Swift Boat ring a bell? (Sorry for the cliches)
Did the press, the tabloids and the bloggers take the baby story too far? Probably. But remember all the stories about the "murder" of Vince Foster, and the press frenzy whenever any white guy drops his pants when and where he shouldn't? From Larry Craig to John Edwards, sex scandals sell papers and get ratings. This isn't sexism and it isn't racism. It's capitalism.
The press does what the press does.
And politicians do what politicians do.
And Republicans lie.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The campaigns: Generation Kill vs. Civilian World
For the past six weeks, my husband and I have been watching Generation Kill on HBO. This mini-series chronicles the slow march of the Marine Corps 1st Recon Battalion to Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War. Not your father's John Wayne war story, this series is tough to watch. It is gritty, violent, raw and honest.
Based on the book of the same name by Rolling Stone reporter Evan Wright, who traveled with the Marines, Generation Kill shows us what happens to men when they are put into an ambiguous, poorly planned, life or death battle with orders from officers who must make it up as they go along and are more interested in medals than morality. It shows the loss of inhibition and ethics when one has the power of life and death over others, and when the normal rules of civilization are suspended, as they always are in war.
Race becomes something to ridicule, women become sexual objects, and killing ("lighting 'em up") is the day's business. While occasionally an officer or enlisted Marine tries to get the men to retain some semblance of humanity, he is quickly overruled with ridicule or the reality of the situation. In one telling scene, an officer comes up to one of his men to congratulate him on the day's kill, which included mostly civilians. In response, the Marine says "Dog, if we killed this many people in civilian world, we'd be in prison." The officer tells him that in this world, he's going to get medals.
Of course, eventually these men have to come home to "Civilian World," and what occurred to me as I watched the mini-series is how hard it is for many to make the transition. In particular, I thought of the three female soldiers (two of them pregnant) who were killed - just in the past few months - by their Iraq veteran boyfriends/fiancés/lovers after they returned home.
What also occurred to me is that this presidential contest is between candidates who are operating in two different worlds. Barack Obama, having never been in the military, and wanting to run a different kind of campaign, is operating according to the rules of "Civilian World."
John McCain, on the other hand, is running the campaign like he is in a war zone, where anything and everything civil is abandoned and conscience is put into a lock box. Lying, cheating, stealing, and attacking your opponent without mercy is the hallmark of the McCain campaign, as it was in the Bush campaign.
The current controversies over whether or not McCain lied about an incident when he was a POW and about his cheating by knowing the questions ahead of time at Rick Warren's "civil forum" are just nonsense. It's war. Of course you're going to lie and cheat. In Generation Kill, it's okay to use racial slurs, to denigrate women, to have no respect for those on the other side. You want to win and normal rules of courtesy and political correctness are out the window. In this world, a lie isn't a lie; it's simply part of the strategy. It's what you have to do if you want to win, even as you smile your fake smile and tell the American people you are a pro-life Christian. (McCain's recent offer of his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip Contest tells us he hasn't stopped demeaning women.)
John McCain and the Republicans declared war on the Democrats long ago and it is time Democrats realized that. When Republicans play with rules of war, and Democrats oppose them with rules from "Civilian world," it isn't hard to see who wins.
Barack Obama better choose a fighter as his vice presidential nominee, and he better get a few lessons from advisors who have seen combat, or McCain is liable to eat him alive.
Based on the book of the same name by Rolling Stone reporter Evan Wright, who traveled with the Marines, Generation Kill shows us what happens to men when they are put into an ambiguous, poorly planned, life or death battle with orders from officers who must make it up as they go along and are more interested in medals than morality. It shows the loss of inhibition and ethics when one has the power of life and death over others, and when the normal rules of civilization are suspended, as they always are in war.
Race becomes something to ridicule, women become sexual objects, and killing ("lighting 'em up") is the day's business. While occasionally an officer or enlisted Marine tries to get the men to retain some semblance of humanity, he is quickly overruled with ridicule or the reality of the situation. In one telling scene, an officer comes up to one of his men to congratulate him on the day's kill, which included mostly civilians. In response, the Marine says "Dog, if we killed this many people in civilian world, we'd be in prison." The officer tells him that in this world, he's going to get medals.
Of course, eventually these men have to come home to "Civilian World," and what occurred to me as I watched the mini-series is how hard it is for many to make the transition. In particular, I thought of the three female soldiers (two of them pregnant) who were killed - just in the past few months - by their Iraq veteran boyfriends/fiancés/lovers after they returned home.
What also occurred to me is that this presidential contest is between candidates who are operating in two different worlds. Barack Obama, having never been in the military, and wanting to run a different kind of campaign, is operating according to the rules of "Civilian World."
John McCain, on the other hand, is running the campaign like he is in a war zone, where anything and everything civil is abandoned and conscience is put into a lock box. Lying, cheating, stealing, and attacking your opponent without mercy is the hallmark of the McCain campaign, as it was in the Bush campaign.
The current controversies over whether or not McCain lied about an incident when he was a POW and about his cheating by knowing the questions ahead of time at Rick Warren's "civil forum" are just nonsense. It's war. Of course you're going to lie and cheat. In Generation Kill, it's okay to use racial slurs, to denigrate women, to have no respect for those on the other side. You want to win and normal rules of courtesy and political correctness are out the window. In this world, a lie isn't a lie; it's simply part of the strategy. It's what you have to do if you want to win, even as you smile your fake smile and tell the American people you are a pro-life Christian. (McCain's recent offer of his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip Contest tells us he hasn't stopped demeaning women.)
John McCain and the Republicans declared war on the Democrats long ago and it is time Democrats realized that. When Republicans play with rules of war, and Democrats oppose them with rules from "Civilian world," it isn't hard to see who wins.
Barack Obama better choose a fighter as his vice presidential nominee, and he better get a few lessons from advisors who have seen combat, or McCain is liable to eat him alive.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
McCain's strategy
John McCain's strategy, like that of George W. Bush, is to get voters to fear and resent the superior candidate.
McCain's only hope of winning this election is to paint Barack Obama as not "one of us." If only he can convince enough uneducated voters (his base) that Obama is too different, too "foreign," i. e. "black," and that his Harvard education, high intelligence, and early political success is evidence that he is better than us, an elitist, a celebrity, then perhaps a combination of resentment, racism, and paranoia might get just enough voters to choose the inferior candidate.
Here is a post that outlines the fallacy of McCain's argument.
McCain's only hope of winning this election is to paint Barack Obama as not "one of us." If only he can convince enough uneducated voters (his base) that Obama is too different, too "foreign," i. e. "black," and that his Harvard education, high intelligence, and early political success is evidence that he is better than us, an elitist, a celebrity, then perhaps a combination of resentment, racism, and paranoia might get just enough voters to choose the inferior candidate.
Here is a post that outlines the fallacy of McCain's argument.
Friday, August 8, 2008
What to make of the Clintons....
I don't know if all this buzz about Bill Clinton's anger and Hillary's machinations is coming from the Clintons, who have a reputation for wanting to be in the spotlight, or if it's coming from the media because they want to stir up controversy before the convention to increase ratings come August 25th.
If the media can get enough voters worried and/or curious about whether or not Hillary's PUMAs will cause an upoar demanding she be nominated, or whether Bill will whole or only half-heartedly endorse Obama, they can get more people to tune in.
It's a terrible thing not to be able to trust the media who have become nothing more than corporate shills.
On the other hand, it's not beyond the pale that the Clintons could be wanting more attention. Attention is the air they breathe.
The Clintons at one time were the future of the Democratic Party, the more centrist Democrats, straight out of the Democratic Leadership Counsel. The enthusiasm for the new baby boomer generation he represented propelled Bill Clinton into the White House, rejecting the older WW II generation of Bush Sr. and then Dole. But that was a generation ago.
Now, the Democratic Party primary voters have decided it is time for another new generation, a post boomer generation. They could have gone for identity politics, and many wanted to. Almost half of the primary voters thought it was time to put a woman in the White House. But the desire for generational change won out (though just barely) and it is time to move on.
This desire for change and the move to a new generation propelled Kennedy as well as Clinton into the presidency, and it is likely to do the same this year (although Obama's race is a wild card in our still-too-racist society.)
The best thing the Clintons could do from this day forward, if they want to see a Democrat in the White House, is stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about the Party. As much as Democrats admire the Clintons and are grateful for the good they did in the nineties, it seems the Party wants to move forward to a new generation, and as the elder statesman and stateswoman of the Party, it is their job to help facilitate that with their support and mentoring.
This is the way of life, the way of the world. Older generations mentor younger ones and prepare them for the roles they must take on. The Party has decided Barack is ready enough, and the Clintons can help tremendously by supporting that decision and being there to assist him when needed.
If, instead, they want to make this race about them, especially if they want it to be an "I told you so" moment in November, as Obama loses to a weak and floundering opponent, they will not be forgiven. Should Obama lose and Democrats believe the Clintons didn't work hard enough to help him win, Hillary's potential 2012 candidacy will be and should be dead.
But I say, let's wait and see. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. I do believe they are patriots and I don't think they will sabotage Obama's candidacy. However, if all this speculation gets more people to watch the Democratic Convention, and both Hillary and Bill work their magic to unify the Party and get enthusiastically behind Obama, then more people wills see the Party and the candidate at their best, which could translate into millions of votes.
If the media can get enough voters worried and/or curious about whether or not Hillary's PUMAs will cause an upoar demanding she be nominated, or whether Bill will whole or only half-heartedly endorse Obama, they can get more people to tune in.
It's a terrible thing not to be able to trust the media who have become nothing more than corporate shills.
On the other hand, it's not beyond the pale that the Clintons could be wanting more attention. Attention is the air they breathe.
The Clintons at one time were the future of the Democratic Party, the more centrist Democrats, straight out of the Democratic Leadership Counsel. The enthusiasm for the new baby boomer generation he represented propelled Bill Clinton into the White House, rejecting the older WW II generation of Bush Sr. and then Dole. But that was a generation ago.
Now, the Democratic Party primary voters have decided it is time for another new generation, a post boomer generation. They could have gone for identity politics, and many wanted to. Almost half of the primary voters thought it was time to put a woman in the White House. But the desire for generational change won out (though just barely) and it is time to move on.
This desire for change and the move to a new generation propelled Kennedy as well as Clinton into the presidency, and it is likely to do the same this year (although Obama's race is a wild card in our still-too-racist society.)
The best thing the Clintons could do from this day forward, if they want to see a Democrat in the White House, is stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about the Party. As much as Democrats admire the Clintons and are grateful for the good they did in the nineties, it seems the Party wants to move forward to a new generation, and as the elder statesman and stateswoman of the Party, it is their job to help facilitate that with their support and mentoring.
This is the way of life, the way of the world. Older generations mentor younger ones and prepare them for the roles they must take on. The Party has decided Barack is ready enough, and the Clintons can help tremendously by supporting that decision and being there to assist him when needed.
If, instead, they want to make this race about them, especially if they want it to be an "I told you so" moment in November, as Obama loses to a weak and floundering opponent, they will not be forgiven. Should Obama lose and Democrats believe the Clintons didn't work hard enough to help him win, Hillary's potential 2012 candidacy will be and should be dead.
But I say, let's wait and see. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. I do believe they are patriots and I don't think they will sabotage Obama's candidacy. However, if all this speculation gets more people to watch the Democratic Convention, and both Hillary and Bill work their magic to unify the Party and get enthusiastically behind Obama, then more people wills see the Party and the candidate at their best, which could translate into millions of votes.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Arrogant vs. vulgar
There are lots of words we could use to describe John McCain: old, dangerous, ignorant, hot-tempered, or as Paris Hilton said "wrinkly white haired guy." But, sadly, none of them seem to have the traction to damage his candidacy.
So I've been trying to think of a word to describe John McCain, a word that might stick, a word that the mainstream and cable media would never use because they have too much respect for him, but a word that might catch on in the blogosphere, a word that could match the word "arrogant" that his campaign is using to characterize Barack Obama.
John McCain's appearance at the Sturgis biker gathering, where he offered up his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip contest, gave me the word.
John McCain is "vulgar."
And this isn't the only instance of his vulgarity. Check out my article on Outraged Citizen.
So I've been trying to think of a word to describe John McCain, a word that might stick, a word that the mainstream and cable media would never use because they have too much respect for him, but a word that might catch on in the blogosphere, a word that could match the word "arrogant" that his campaign is using to characterize Barack Obama.
John McCain's appearance at the Sturgis biker gathering, where he offered up his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip contest, gave me the word.
John McCain is "vulgar."
And this isn't the only instance of his vulgarity. Check out my article on Outraged Citizen.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The McCain mythology and the derelict press
A study of media bias that came out last week showed that Obama received more television air time, but more negative press, by far, than that received by McCain.
I have noticed in my own survey of one, that reporters and anchors on the cable shows spend more time reporting negative stories about Obama, or emphasizing polls when they narrow, or when he doesn't get a bounce than they report polls where McCain is trailing badly. They constantly wonder aloud why Obama "can't close the deal" but never seem interested in why McCain can't go above 45%. They spent weeks on Reverend Wright and how damaging it would be to Obama, but they could barely find five minutes to talk about John Hagee. They love to talk about Michelle Obama's problems with voters, even though she is rarely campaigning with her husband, but never, ever mention McCain's creepy wife Cindy who was once addicted to drugs and follows him everywhere like a dutiful wife from Stepford. They talk about Obama's "flip-flops," but barely mention McCain's. They certainly don't waste much time tying McCain more closely to Bush.
Why is that?
Are they all in the tank for McCain? Are they all racist?
No. My guess is, with the exception of the reporters and pundits at FOX News, who are obviously in the tank for the Republican, and possibly racist as well, most reporters and anchors are neither.
I think what is going on is this: they are all playing "gotcha," hoping to report on an exciting story about the new guy, trying to be Woodward or Bernstein, and they mistakenly believe there is nothing new to find out about McCain. They see Obama as a fascinating mystery, someone who must have something negative in his background and if they can only find it, they will be lauded as great reporters.
With respect to McCain, it's as if their assessment of him began and ended the day he was released as a POW. The narrative of McCain as all-American hero, honest and patriotic, was only enhanced over the years with McCain's characterization of himself as a maverick and a straight talker. He has been so successful in getting the media to buy into his fairy tale about himself that no one will dig deeper, and when one or two do, the huge media crowd looks the other way. They simply can't believe anything bad about McCain except that he's old, and they refuse to see that as a huge problem, no matter how many times he forgets things, gets things wrong, or changes his positions. Reagan was old, they remind us.
The narrative is still being created about Obama and, of course, the Republicans are contributing to that narrative, with an obedient press following along, trying to paint Obama as both unqualified and elitist, a popular celebrity and someone who can't relate to anyone, too liberal and too much of a flip-flopper. The press is fascinated and wants to be part of the story.
McCain is old news, his reputation set in stone as far as the press is concerned. They just aren't interested. But Obama is new, and the media can help create his reputation, even if they use Republican lies and distortions, even if they fall for smears that are baseless. It's much more interesting than digging deeper into the mythology of McCain. Plus, it increases their ratings.
So McCain stays under the radar, keeps his well crafted brand, and encourages the press to keep up their coverage of the smears they (the McCain camp) create about Obama, and maybe, just maybe, McCain can sneak into the White House with no one noticing what a terrible candidate he has been and what a terrible president he will be.
I have noticed in my own survey of one, that reporters and anchors on the cable shows spend more time reporting negative stories about Obama, or emphasizing polls when they narrow, or when he doesn't get a bounce than they report polls where McCain is trailing badly. They constantly wonder aloud why Obama "can't close the deal" but never seem interested in why McCain can't go above 45%. They spent weeks on Reverend Wright and how damaging it would be to Obama, but they could barely find five minutes to talk about John Hagee. They love to talk about Michelle Obama's problems with voters, even though she is rarely campaigning with her husband, but never, ever mention McCain's creepy wife Cindy who was once addicted to drugs and follows him everywhere like a dutiful wife from Stepford. They talk about Obama's "flip-flops," but barely mention McCain's. They certainly don't waste much time tying McCain more closely to Bush.
Why is that?
Are they all in the tank for McCain? Are they all racist?
No. My guess is, with the exception of the reporters and pundits at FOX News, who are obviously in the tank for the Republican, and possibly racist as well, most reporters and anchors are neither.
I think what is going on is this: they are all playing "gotcha," hoping to report on an exciting story about the new guy, trying to be Woodward or Bernstein, and they mistakenly believe there is nothing new to find out about McCain. They see Obama as a fascinating mystery, someone who must have something negative in his background and if they can only find it, they will be lauded as great reporters.
With respect to McCain, it's as if their assessment of him began and ended the day he was released as a POW. The narrative of McCain as all-American hero, honest and patriotic, was only enhanced over the years with McCain's characterization of himself as a maverick and a straight talker. He has been so successful in getting the media to buy into his fairy tale about himself that no one will dig deeper, and when one or two do, the huge media crowd looks the other way. They simply can't believe anything bad about McCain except that he's old, and they refuse to see that as a huge problem, no matter how many times he forgets things, gets things wrong, or changes his positions. Reagan was old, they remind us.
The narrative is still being created about Obama and, of course, the Republicans are contributing to that narrative, with an obedient press following along, trying to paint Obama as both unqualified and elitist, a popular celebrity and someone who can't relate to anyone, too liberal and too much of a flip-flopper. The press is fascinated and wants to be part of the story.
McCain is old news, his reputation set in stone as far as the press is concerned. They just aren't interested. But Obama is new, and the media can help create his reputation, even if they use Republican lies and distortions, even if they fall for smears that are baseless. It's much more interesting than digging deeper into the mythology of McCain. Plus, it increases their ratings.
So McCain stays under the radar, keeps his well crafted brand, and encourages the press to keep up their coverage of the smears they (the McCain camp) create about Obama, and maybe, just maybe, McCain can sneak into the White House with no one noticing what a terrible candidate he has been and what a terrible president he will be.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
It's all about popular
John McCain, that "war hero," is acting more and more like a jealous teenage girl who wants to be the prom queen but got passed over for someone prettier. He absolutely can't stand it that Obama is a "celebrity," and more popular than he is. He thought he had it made, being a war hero and having the press in his pocket. But then the new kid came to town and the new kid outshined him.
McCain even went so far as to act like he wanted to be Obama's mentor, said he would take him to Iraq and educate him. Kind of like the very popular Galinda in the play Wicked, who said she would teach Elphaba how to be "popular." When I heard the song today, I couldn't help but think of McCain, how he sees himself, and how others are finally beginning to see him, as someone obsessed with popularity and insanely jealous that Obama outshines him.
Here are some of the lyrics:
McCain even went so far as to act like he wanted to be Obama's mentor, said he would take him to Iraq and educate him. Kind of like the very popular Galinda in the play Wicked, who said she would teach Elphaba how to be "popular." When I heard the song today, I couldn't help but think of McCain, how he sees himself, and how others are finally beginning to see him, as someone obsessed with popularity and insanely jealous that Obama outshines him.
Here are some of the lyrics:
POPULAR! I'll help you be popular!
You'll hang with the right cohorts,
You'll be good at sports,
Know the slang you've got to know.
So let's start, 'Cause you've got an awfully long way to go!...
When I see depressing creatures,
with unprepossessing features,
I remind them on their own behalf
To think of Celebrated heads of state,
Or specially great communicators!
Did they have brains or knowledge?
Don't make me laugh!
They were POPULAR!
Please! it's all about popular.
It's not about aptitude, It's the way you're viewed,
So it's very shrewd to be,
Very very popular like ME! ...
You'll be popular!
Just not quite as popular as ME!
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Getting smart or staying stupid
I've developed a really bad habit. I get up around 5:00 a.m. to watch the last hour of Morning Joke on MSNBC. It's on from 6 to 9 east coast time, which means 3 to 6 here. This bad habit ensures that a) I will not get eight hours of sleep each night, and b) I will be pissed off by about 5:45.
This morning was no exception. I'm pissed. One of the guests was Larry Kudlow, who mostly makes me want to vomit. This morning was a bit amusing, however, in that regular commentator Pat Buchanan, who also usually makes me want to vomit, was actually arguing with him over the immoral multimillion dollar salaries and benefit packages for CEOs. That part was actually refreshing.
What angered me, though, was Kudlow's insistence that we begin drilling immediately off the coasts and in Alaska, as - he claims - it will lower the price of gas immediately. According to Kudlow, once the oil producing companies realize Americans are going to get their own oil, they will release more of their supplies and that will lower the price. Supply and demand.
This is typical supply side Republican economics and politics. Think only of the ideological economic principles you embrace so that American business can reap huge profits, and pander to the people so you can get your guys in office to continue the raping of the middle class.
Kudlow thinks only in terms of dollars, and completely ignores environmental concerns. For decades now we have been watching our climate change and our environment deteriorate. For years politicians have paid lip service to finding renewable sources of energy and weaning this country off of oil. For years they have done nothing.
The technology exists to move us from an oil based economy to an economy that takes advantage of wind, sun, plants and even nuclear based energy. Yet we remain stuck in our dependency on oil, which not only continues to harm our planet, but holds us captive to a destructive and violent foreign policy. Drilling for oil will only give us a false sense of security and waste time we should be spending on implementing long term solutions, environmentally friendly solutions.
We have wasted eight years while two oil men ran the country, started wars for oil, and ignored the looming crisis. McCain is proposing the same policies that these oil men are calling for: more drilling. Why? Not because it would mean we could change our foreign policy - McCain wants more wars in the Middle East. He envisions being there for 50 or 100 years if necessary. No, McCain wants more drilling because it's a good campaign issue. Why is it a good campaign issue? Because people are mad that they have to pay so much for a gallon of gasoline.
During these past eight years, when American auto makers should have been manufacturing more fuel efficient cars, and the people should have been demanding them, the car companies sold expensive gas guzzlers, the Bush administration gave tax breaks for the purchase of large vehicles, and the people bought them to show off. We have all been stupid, but it's time to get smart, and that is not what McCain is proposing. He is proposing something incredibly stupid: retain our dependency on oil, but find the oil here in America.
If we go along with Larry Kudlow, and elect John McCain, we will be signing our planet's death warrant. Even if he only serves four years, we can't afford those years.
This is it boys and girls. We must start changing now. We must switch over to other sources of energy as rapidly as possible. The only candidate promising to do that, the only candidate capable of doing that, is Barack Obama.
This morning was no exception. I'm pissed. One of the guests was Larry Kudlow, who mostly makes me want to vomit. This morning was a bit amusing, however, in that regular commentator Pat Buchanan, who also usually makes me want to vomit, was actually arguing with him over the immoral multimillion dollar salaries and benefit packages for CEOs. That part was actually refreshing.
What angered me, though, was Kudlow's insistence that we begin drilling immediately off the coasts and in Alaska, as - he claims - it will lower the price of gas immediately. According to Kudlow, once the oil producing companies realize Americans are going to get their own oil, they will release more of their supplies and that will lower the price. Supply and demand.
This is typical supply side Republican economics and politics. Think only of the ideological economic principles you embrace so that American business can reap huge profits, and pander to the people so you can get your guys in office to continue the raping of the middle class.
Kudlow thinks only in terms of dollars, and completely ignores environmental concerns. For decades now we have been watching our climate change and our environment deteriorate. For years politicians have paid lip service to finding renewable sources of energy and weaning this country off of oil. For years they have done nothing.
The technology exists to move us from an oil based economy to an economy that takes advantage of wind, sun, plants and even nuclear based energy. Yet we remain stuck in our dependency on oil, which not only continues to harm our planet, but holds us captive to a destructive and violent foreign policy. Drilling for oil will only give us a false sense of security and waste time we should be spending on implementing long term solutions, environmentally friendly solutions.
We have wasted eight years while two oil men ran the country, started wars for oil, and ignored the looming crisis. McCain is proposing the same policies that these oil men are calling for: more drilling. Why? Not because it would mean we could change our foreign policy - McCain wants more wars in the Middle East. He envisions being there for 50 or 100 years if necessary. No, McCain wants more drilling because it's a good campaign issue. Why is it a good campaign issue? Because people are mad that they have to pay so much for a gallon of gasoline.
During these past eight years, when American auto makers should have been manufacturing more fuel efficient cars, and the people should have been demanding them, the car companies sold expensive gas guzzlers, the Bush administration gave tax breaks for the purchase of large vehicles, and the people bought them to show off. We have all been stupid, but it's time to get smart, and that is not what McCain is proposing. He is proposing something incredibly stupid: retain our dependency on oil, but find the oil here in America.
If we go along with Larry Kudlow, and elect John McCain, we will be signing our planet's death warrant. Even if he only serves four years, we can't afford those years.
This is it boys and girls. We must start changing now. We must switch over to other sources of energy as rapidly as possible. The only candidate promising to do that, the only candidate capable of doing that, is Barack Obama.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Qualifications to be president
Yesterday, on Face the Nation, General Wesley Clark said this about John McCain:
So why are some making it such a big deal?
Because this attacks McCain's strength? Perhaps.
Because in this country WAR is a sacrament and you can't criticize the high priests of war? Maybe.
Except....Republicans routinely criticize Democratic war heroes. Remember how John Kerry's service in Vietnam was attacked by the Swift Boat liars? Remember how Vietnam war hero and triple amputee Max Cleland was compared to Osama bin Laden just so he could be defeated in an election?
So does this mean in the sacrament of war, only Republicans are allowed to be high priests? Only Republicans are immune from criticism? Democrats may be war heroes, but unless they join the Republican Party they are only war heroes in their own minds?
Barack Obama is consistent. Whenever he mentions John McCain, he always starts by honoring his service and heroism. Republicans, on the other hand, never speak with respect about Democratic warriors.
So if it takes another war hero, Wesley Clark, to say the obvious - being shot down and being a POW may make you heroic, but it doesn't qualify you to be president - then good for him.
We are choosing a president this year, not a general, not a pilot, not a war hero. Part of the job of the president is to be commander in chief of the armed services, which is a civilian role. And we have never, to my knowledge, elected a former POW as president.
The president is much more than just commander in chief, though, as much as the McCain folks would like you to forget that. The president must oversee the economy, the budget, foreign policy, and internal matters such as education, energy, healthcare, civil rights and urban problems. He must understand the Constitution, the way government works, something about economics, civil rights, agriculture, the environment, and America's relationship with the rest of the world.
Being shot down over Vietnam nearly forty years ago, and being held as a POW, may build a man's character, but it doesn't qualify you to handle any of these issues. Nor, for that matter, does it qualify you to be commander in chief.
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war."
"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron."
"I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."
Now Republicans and media commentators are either saying or implying that Clark crossed over a line. He said something he shouldn't have said. He actually dared to say that being a fighter pilot, being shot down, and being a POW do not automatically qualify someone to be president. I don't care how long you have been a Republican, or how much you admire McCain for what he endured, you cannot disagree with what Clark said.
So why are some making it such a big deal?
Because this attacks McCain's strength? Perhaps.
Because in this country WAR is a sacrament and you can't criticize the high priests of war? Maybe.
Except....Republicans routinely criticize Democratic war heroes. Remember how John Kerry's service in Vietnam was attacked by the Swift Boat liars? Remember how Vietnam war hero and triple amputee Max Cleland was compared to Osama bin Laden just so he could be defeated in an election?
So does this mean in the sacrament of war, only Republicans are allowed to be high priests? Only Republicans are immune from criticism? Democrats may be war heroes, but unless they join the Republican Party they are only war heroes in their own minds?
Barack Obama is consistent. Whenever he mentions John McCain, he always starts by honoring his service and heroism. Republicans, on the other hand, never speak with respect about Democratic warriors.
So if it takes another war hero, Wesley Clark, to say the obvious - being shot down and being a POW may make you heroic, but it doesn't qualify you to be president - then good for him.
We are choosing a president this year, not a general, not a pilot, not a war hero. Part of the job of the president is to be commander in chief of the armed services, which is a civilian role. And we have never, to my knowledge, elected a former POW as president.
The president is much more than just commander in chief, though, as much as the McCain folks would like you to forget that. The president must oversee the economy, the budget, foreign policy, and internal matters such as education, energy, healthcare, civil rights and urban problems. He must understand the Constitution, the way government works, something about economics, civil rights, agriculture, the environment, and America's relationship with the rest of the world.
Being shot down over Vietnam nearly forty years ago, and being held as a POW, may build a man's character, but it doesn't qualify you to handle any of these issues. Nor, for that matter, does it qualify you to be commander in chief.
Misinformed, uneducated Americans
I have a lovely neighbor across the street with whom I talk occasionally, usually when we are both outside tending to our gardens. She is a woman in her sixties, recently retired and caring for a husband who has begun to have disturbing neurological symptoms which aren't yet diagnosed. As my father sees a neurologist for his degenerative brain disease and as I am familiar with some of the neurologists in this geographical area, I asked who her husband was seeing. She gave me a name I didn't recognize, then said "He is a Muslim, but he seems like a good doctor though I can't understand him very well."
I acknowledged the second part of her statement, the difficulty understanding a foreign doctor, as my dad's doctor has a thick Chinese accent which always reminds me of the character Peter Sellers played in the movie Murder by Death.
What I didn't do, because it didn't connect at first, was ask her how she knew the doctor was a Muslim. As far as I know, most doctors don't advertise their religious affiliation, and I don't think most Muslim professionals do or say anything that would give that away. Did he drop down on a prayer rug while they were there? Did she spot a copy of the Koran in his office? Was his first name Mohammed?
What I think is that she made the same mistake a lot of Americans make when they don't know a lot about Islam or the Arab world. She confused being an Arab with being a Muslim. She may not realize that not all Arabs are Muslims, that many are in fact Christians, and others are atheists.
He may not have even been an Arab. He may have been Indian, or Pakistani, or some other nationality and she simply saw him as "Muslim." As to his religion, he could have been Hindu or Sikh.
I don't think my neighbor is unusual in her confusion regarding religion and nationality. I think more Americans are confused about this than are knowledgable, which is why it is so easy for opponents of Barack Obama to disseminate the lie that he is a Muslim. If all it takes for many Americans to believe someone is a Muslim is for that person to be dark skinned and/or have an unusual "Arab sounding" name, then Barack is an easy target.
I find it amazing that in this day, with the internet, hundreds of cable television channels, newspapers, radio, thousands of political books, and more people attending college than ever, that so many voters in this country still don't understand the difference between being an Arab and and being a Muslim, and don't know that not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs.
With such an uneducated populace, and FOX News and right wing radio working overtime to keep them misinformed, it will indeed be a miracle if Obama can overcome the smears and falsehoods, and actually become the next president.
I acknowledged the second part of her statement, the difficulty understanding a foreign doctor, as my dad's doctor has a thick Chinese accent which always reminds me of the character Peter Sellers played in the movie Murder by Death.
What I didn't do, because it didn't connect at first, was ask her how she knew the doctor was a Muslim. As far as I know, most doctors don't advertise their religious affiliation, and I don't think most Muslim professionals do or say anything that would give that away. Did he drop down on a prayer rug while they were there? Did she spot a copy of the Koran in his office? Was his first name Mohammed?
What I think is that she made the same mistake a lot of Americans make when they don't know a lot about Islam or the Arab world. She confused being an Arab with being a Muslim. She may not realize that not all Arabs are Muslims, that many are in fact Christians, and others are atheists.
He may not have even been an Arab. He may have been Indian, or Pakistani, or some other nationality and she simply saw him as "Muslim." As to his religion, he could have been Hindu or Sikh.
I don't think my neighbor is unusual in her confusion regarding religion and nationality. I think more Americans are confused about this than are knowledgable, which is why it is so easy for opponents of Barack Obama to disseminate the lie that he is a Muslim. If all it takes for many Americans to believe someone is a Muslim is for that person to be dark skinned and/or have an unusual "Arab sounding" name, then Barack is an easy target.
I find it amazing that in this day, with the internet, hundreds of cable television channels, newspapers, radio, thousands of political books, and more people attending college than ever, that so many voters in this country still don't understand the difference between being an Arab and and being a Muslim, and don't know that not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs.
With such an uneducated populace, and FOX News and right wing radio working overtime to keep them misinformed, it will indeed be a miracle if Obama can overcome the smears and falsehoods, and actually become the next president.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Arrogant religious groups and intolerant religious leaders do damage to our democracy
One of the most damaging developments in politics over the past two decades has been the effort on the part of religious GROUPS to insert themselves into political ELECTIONS.
I'm not saying that INDIVIDUALS should not vote according to their consciences, nor am I saying religion is destructive when it is part of political discourse. What I do assert is that, in a religiously pluralistic society, it is dangerous to democracy when religious GROUPS insert themselves into ELECTIONS and endorse or condemn candidates, leading their members to believe they can only remain in favor with God if they vote according to their leaders' dictates. It is also extremely dangerous when leaders of one religion imply that America was founded in conformity with, and thus must adhere to, their dogmas.
Religious people have always and will always vote at least partially according to their values, and that is their right. But when religious leaders tell people whom to vote for, either directly or indirectly, or when they smear candidates, or when they blackmail candidates, or raise money for candidates, or falsely accuse candidates of persecuting them, in order to gain political advantage, they are crossing a line that the Founding Fathers did not want crossed.
When Karl Rove harnessed the power of churches and pastors to register voters to vote for a specific candidate, and hand out voting guides that instructed church members for whom to vote, he was crossing a line, as were tax exempt churches which legally must refrain from this sort of thing. When some bishops in the Catholic Church said they would deny communion to candidates who did not want to criminalize abortion, even though those candidates were personally opposed to the practice, and threatened excommunication to voters who voted for those candidates, they were crossing a line as well.
Two years ago, Barack Obama gave a speech in which he reached out to religious voters, but said we must find ways to create policy and agree on issues that go beyond religious arguments, because many American voters will not be receptive to such arguments. He said:
These words of Obama reflect something I have been thinking for years. As someone who abhors the huge numbers of abortions in this country, and regrets the casual approach some have to the procedure, I share the values of some "pro-life Christians." But I don't share their solution, which is to overturn Roe V. Wade and criminalize abortion. There are many reasons for that, which I will not belabor now, but what I realize about the abortion debate is that it will not be solved with either the NARAL approach or the "right to life" approach.
Religious people want to argue on the basis of religious beliefs and secular people will never be persuaded by religious arguments. Even if the pro-life movement were to succeed in overturning Roe V. Wade and banning abortion, at least one half of the country would not be convinced. And the fight would continue. Obama is saying we need to find another way to discuss these things, and use both science and reason to find a compromise that will not be perfect, but might be better than continuing this endless animosity the two sides have for each other.
Today, James Dobson is using this two year old speech of Obama's to attack him and say he is "dragging Biblical understanding through the gutter" and has a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution. Dobson is particularly irate about Obama using the example of abortion to call for a different kind of political discourse. Dobson is one of those who will not support a political candidate unless he professes the exact beliefs that Dobson and his followers do. As such, Dobson supported Bush, but abhors McCain. Even though McCain is "pro-life," he isn't conservative enough for Dobson, nor sufficiently anti-abortion. McCain would like to see Roe overturned, but he wants to return the choice of whether abortion should be legal back to the states. This isn't good enough for Dobson, who will not be satisfied until abortion is a crime everywhere.
Obama isn't just being attacked by the "Christian" Dobson, however. Muslim groups are also unhappy with Obama because he has not visited a mosque and is reluctant to publicly embrace Muslim voters. To those of us who have watched as the Republican smear machine, with a little assist from some Hillary supporters, have either pushed the lie that Obama was a Muslim or allowed people to falsely believe it, know how tricky this territory is for Obama. If he visits a mosque, pictures will circulate all over the internet "proving" that Obama is a Muslim.
Those Americans who are rational and educated know Islam is an ancient and honorable religion, but in this post 9/11 world, when millions of people have decided, with help from Dobson and the like, that the religion of Islam (and not just a radical sect of Islam) is an evil force that is responsible for killing Americans, Barack cannot do anything to allow this misunderstanding to continue, no matter how much he respects Muslims and wants them to support him.
Of course, if church and state remained completely separate, this might not be such dangerous territory. Barack's problems with those who drag religion into the public square is not limited to the internet rumor that he is a Muslim, nor critiques of his call for a dialogue that does not cater to fundamentalist Christians. As we have seen today, he is being attacked by a fellow "Christian" not just because some assert he is not the right kind of Christian, but also because he is apparently, not the right kind of American. (Groups like Focus on the Family have intertwined their brand of Christian orthodoxy with their brand of American orthodoxy.) Even though he is a Constitutional law professor, according to Dobson he has a "fruitcake" understanding of the Constitution, whatever that means.
And as we saw just a few months ago, Barack's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was all the proof that the right wing smear machine needed to prove Barack was the wrong kind of Christian, one who sat in a respected Christian Church whose pastor dared to challenge the morality of some aspects of American governmental policy, a pastor who got a little too worked up, a little too emotional, a little too angry at what has been done to black Americans at the hand of the American government and the many southern "Christians" who used scripture to justify the horrifying treatment of African Americans.
Obama is in a no-win situation here, all because religion has become way too intertwined with politics and too many rigidly orthodox religious leaders don't seem to want to accept Obama's view that Americans of all religions and no religion must learn to talk with each other in a different way. Each religious group wants to be catered to in exactly the way they think they should be catered to. Each religious group believes its tenets alone are the word of God. Each believes America must conform to their interpretation of the Bible, which in turn colors their interpretation of the Constitution.
And herein lies the problem: since America is made up of peoples who profess many different faiths, many different versions of the various faiths, as well as people who profess no faith, all of whom are equal under the law and each of whom can cast only one vote, the citizens of America must learn to speak to each other in a common language, and that language cannot be the language of the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text.
Once Obama takes the oath of office next January 20th, I hope he will follow through on the vision he offered in his speech two years ago. I hope his presidency is one in which the radical right religious leaders can be tamed and learn that it will be good for America, and good for them as well, if we can all learn how to speak to each other, not as people of God vs. people of the world, not as religious vs. secular, not as fundamentalists vs. modernists, not as conservatives vs. liberals, but simply as Americans, concerned not about implementing one or another interpretation of the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran in our laws, but about implementing the COMMON GOOD.
In such a world, perhaps we could stop criticizing and attacking each other, stop arrogantly insisting we alone know the real truth, and start finding ways to live in peace, with love and acceptance of all people, and with real "liberty and justice for all," no matter what faith anyone professes, or what anyone believes.
How on earth could God take issue with that?
I'm not saying that INDIVIDUALS should not vote according to their consciences, nor am I saying religion is destructive when it is part of political discourse. What I do assert is that, in a religiously pluralistic society, it is dangerous to democracy when religious GROUPS insert themselves into ELECTIONS and endorse or condemn candidates, leading their members to believe they can only remain in favor with God if they vote according to their leaders' dictates. It is also extremely dangerous when leaders of one religion imply that America was founded in conformity with, and thus must adhere to, their dogmas.
Religious people have always and will always vote at least partially according to their values, and that is their right. But when religious leaders tell people whom to vote for, either directly or indirectly, or when they smear candidates, or when they blackmail candidates, or raise money for candidates, or falsely accuse candidates of persecuting them, in order to gain political advantage, they are crossing a line that the Founding Fathers did not want crossed.
When Karl Rove harnessed the power of churches and pastors to register voters to vote for a specific candidate, and hand out voting guides that instructed church members for whom to vote, he was crossing a line, as were tax exempt churches which legally must refrain from this sort of thing. When some bishops in the Catholic Church said they would deny communion to candidates who did not want to criminalize abortion, even though those candidates were personally opposed to the practice, and threatened excommunication to voters who voted for those candidates, they were crossing a line as well.
Two years ago, Barack Obama gave a speech in which he reached out to religious voters, but said we must find ways to create policy and agree on issues that go beyond religious arguments, because many American voters will not be receptive to such arguments. He said:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."
These words of Obama reflect something I have been thinking for years. As someone who abhors the huge numbers of abortions in this country, and regrets the casual approach some have to the procedure, I share the values of some "pro-life Christians." But I don't share their solution, which is to overturn Roe V. Wade and criminalize abortion. There are many reasons for that, which I will not belabor now, but what I realize about the abortion debate is that it will not be solved with either the NARAL approach or the "right to life" approach.
Religious people want to argue on the basis of religious beliefs and secular people will never be persuaded by religious arguments. Even if the pro-life movement were to succeed in overturning Roe V. Wade and banning abortion, at least one half of the country would not be convinced. And the fight would continue. Obama is saying we need to find another way to discuss these things, and use both science and reason to find a compromise that will not be perfect, but might be better than continuing this endless animosity the two sides have for each other.
Today, James Dobson is using this two year old speech of Obama's to attack him and say he is "dragging Biblical understanding through the gutter" and has a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution. Dobson is particularly irate about Obama using the example of abortion to call for a different kind of political discourse. Dobson is one of those who will not support a political candidate unless he professes the exact beliefs that Dobson and his followers do. As such, Dobson supported Bush, but abhors McCain. Even though McCain is "pro-life," he isn't conservative enough for Dobson, nor sufficiently anti-abortion. McCain would like to see Roe overturned, but he wants to return the choice of whether abortion should be legal back to the states. This isn't good enough for Dobson, who will not be satisfied until abortion is a crime everywhere.
Obama isn't just being attacked by the "Christian" Dobson, however. Muslim groups are also unhappy with Obama because he has not visited a mosque and is reluctant to publicly embrace Muslim voters. To those of us who have watched as the Republican smear machine, with a little assist from some Hillary supporters, have either pushed the lie that Obama was a Muslim or allowed people to falsely believe it, know how tricky this territory is for Obama. If he visits a mosque, pictures will circulate all over the internet "proving" that Obama is a Muslim.
Those Americans who are rational and educated know Islam is an ancient and honorable religion, but in this post 9/11 world, when millions of people have decided, with help from Dobson and the like, that the religion of Islam (and not just a radical sect of Islam) is an evil force that is responsible for killing Americans, Barack cannot do anything to allow this misunderstanding to continue, no matter how much he respects Muslims and wants them to support him.
Of course, if church and state remained completely separate, this might not be such dangerous territory. Barack's problems with those who drag religion into the public square is not limited to the internet rumor that he is a Muslim, nor critiques of his call for a dialogue that does not cater to fundamentalist Christians. As we have seen today, he is being attacked by a fellow "Christian" not just because some assert he is not the right kind of Christian, but also because he is apparently, not the right kind of American. (Groups like Focus on the Family have intertwined their brand of Christian orthodoxy with their brand of American orthodoxy.) Even though he is a Constitutional law professor, according to Dobson he has a "fruitcake" understanding of the Constitution, whatever that means.
And as we saw just a few months ago, Barack's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was all the proof that the right wing smear machine needed to prove Barack was the wrong kind of Christian, one who sat in a respected Christian Church whose pastor dared to challenge the morality of some aspects of American governmental policy, a pastor who got a little too worked up, a little too emotional, a little too angry at what has been done to black Americans at the hand of the American government and the many southern "Christians" who used scripture to justify the horrifying treatment of African Americans.
Obama is in a no-win situation here, all because religion has become way too intertwined with politics and too many rigidly orthodox religious leaders don't seem to want to accept Obama's view that Americans of all religions and no religion must learn to talk with each other in a different way. Each religious group wants to be catered to in exactly the way they think they should be catered to. Each religious group believes its tenets alone are the word of God. Each believes America must conform to their interpretation of the Bible, which in turn colors their interpretation of the Constitution.
And herein lies the problem: since America is made up of peoples who profess many different faiths, many different versions of the various faiths, as well as people who profess no faith, all of whom are equal under the law and each of whom can cast only one vote, the citizens of America must learn to speak to each other in a common language, and that language cannot be the language of the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text.
Once Obama takes the oath of office next January 20th, I hope he will follow through on the vision he offered in his speech two years ago. I hope his presidency is one in which the radical right religious leaders can be tamed and learn that it will be good for America, and good for them as well, if we can all learn how to speak to each other, not as people of God vs. people of the world, not as religious vs. secular, not as fundamentalists vs. modernists, not as conservatives vs. liberals, but simply as Americans, concerned not about implementing one or another interpretation of the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran in our laws, but about implementing the COMMON GOOD.
In such a world, perhaps we could stop criticizing and attacking each other, stop arrogantly insisting we alone know the real truth, and start finding ways to live in peace, with love and acceptance of all people, and with real "liberty and justice for all," no matter what faith anyone professes, or what anyone believes.
How on earth could God take issue with that?
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Thoughts on the past week
I took the week off last week - mostly because it was my birthday and I felt like paying attention to other things - but a lot happened while I was contemplating my advancing age.
Barack Obama chose not to opt into the public financing system for his campaign and to continue to rely on individual donors to help him win the election. McCain is screaming that this means Obama is untrustworthy and a flip-flopper and therefore shouldn't be allowed to become president. Considering that no one has fip-flopped more than McCain - on the Bush tax cuts, on statements about Iraq, on illegal immigration, etc. - the flip-flopping charge is silly. As for the meaning of Obama's decision - it means one thing: he wants to win, and the more money he has the better his chances. If McCain had the donors Obama does, he would do the same thing. And considering how the Republicans are so fond of smear campaigns, and are threatening an "October surprise," Obama will need all the cash he can get to counter their atacks. He's doing the only thing a responsible Democrat can do - be prepared for the lies, distortions, and smears by having the kind of war chest that will go to battle in every media outlet to defeat these tactics.
Newsweek has Obama up by fifteen points over John McCain. No other poll has him up by this much and as everyone says, it's still a long time until November. But this is a good indication of the mood of the country, and barring another terrorist attack, an effective swiftboating of Obama, or some other unforeseen event that changes the public's mind, it looks like the country wants the change candidate, the younger candidate, the candidate who knows how to use a computer. Of course, the press still isn't focusing a great deal on McCain's mistakes and gaffes, but as the campaign goes on and the stress builds, we are likely to see more of them. The election could be a Democratic blow out.
Large sections of the Midwest are under water and I wonder if scientists believe global warming has something to do with it, as they determined with Katrina and the disaster in New Orleans. Some of the areas that flooded are considered to be prone to flooding every 100 years, but the last time there was severe flooding along the Mississippi was in 1993, just 15 years ago. I heard that new levees are being built each year along the Mississippi, and considering how frequently the river rises in this era of climate change, and how often these levees fail, this seems absurd. When will we humans stop living in areas that are prone to flooding, and stop thinking levees - or God - will protect us?
The House of Representatives passed the "FISA Compromise," Barack Obama released a statement saying he would support it, and the progressive community is pissed. I haven't read the bill and wonder how many in Congress have. I do know that it gives immunity to telecom companies for their cooperation with the Bush administration in its illegal wiretapping program, portions of which the Congress has now agreed to make legal. It does, apparently, give Bush most of what he wants, which to progressives is always a bad thing, as progressives do not think this president does anything unless it helps his buddies or himself, and believe most of what he does violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution. I agree, and I wish Obama would have stood up to the president. More than that, I wish the Congress would stand up to the president. Maybe someday we will know the real reason why they didn't. But progressives shouldn't condemn Obama for this decision. As a legislator, he sees the writing on the wall, and knows the bill will most likely pass. As a presidential candidate, he doesn't want to give the Republicans ammunition to call him "soft on terrorism," and as a future president, he wants to have sufficient powers to fight terrorism. We can hope, however, that as a president he won't abuse those powers. The way I see it, the passage of this bill is even more reason to support Obama. Can you imagine a President McCain with these powers?
Tim Russert was buried. I had mixed feelings about Tim Russert as moderator of Meet the Press. Sometimes (mostly when he was grilling someone I didn't respect) I liked him. Other times (when he grilled one of my guys) I didn't. I stopped watching him for a while, especially when he spent a full hour with each of the primary candidates, as I just couldn't listen to an entire hour of spin and deception. When he died a week ago, unexpectedly at the age of 58, while working at the NBC studios, I felt sadness for his family, and after days of tribute, for his colleagues as well. But what struck me most about the tributes I heard is that they painted a picture of a really good man, a man who was always available for his friends, always there to lend a hand, always ready to offer encouragement. More than a great bureau chief, or host of a popular television program, Tim Russert was an example of a really good and decent person, a devout Irish Catholic with a great sense of humor, who loved sports as much as he loved work, but who mostly just loved the people around him, all of whom he considered family. MSNBC was criticized for its non-stop coverage of his death and funeral - which lasted from Friday afternoon until the funeral on Wednesday - but after hearing the stories about how he was always the first to help a friend in need, I can understand why they couldn't stop talking about him. NBC will find a new Washington bureau chief, and a new moderator of Meet the Press - no one is indispensable in that respect - but those close to him will not find a replacement for the great role model and friend they lost.
Barack Obama chose not to opt into the public financing system for his campaign and to continue to rely on individual donors to help him win the election. McCain is screaming that this means Obama is untrustworthy and a flip-flopper and therefore shouldn't be allowed to become president. Considering that no one has fip-flopped more than McCain - on the Bush tax cuts, on statements about Iraq, on illegal immigration, etc. - the flip-flopping charge is silly. As for the meaning of Obama's decision - it means one thing: he wants to win, and the more money he has the better his chances. If McCain had the donors Obama does, he would do the same thing. And considering how the Republicans are so fond of smear campaigns, and are threatening an "October surprise," Obama will need all the cash he can get to counter their atacks. He's doing the only thing a responsible Democrat can do - be prepared for the lies, distortions, and smears by having the kind of war chest that will go to battle in every media outlet to defeat these tactics.
Newsweek has Obama up by fifteen points over John McCain. No other poll has him up by this much and as everyone says, it's still a long time until November. But this is a good indication of the mood of the country, and barring another terrorist attack, an effective swiftboating of Obama, or some other unforeseen event that changes the public's mind, it looks like the country wants the change candidate, the younger candidate, the candidate who knows how to use a computer. Of course, the press still isn't focusing a great deal on McCain's mistakes and gaffes, but as the campaign goes on and the stress builds, we are likely to see more of them. The election could be a Democratic blow out.
Large sections of the Midwest are under water and I wonder if scientists believe global warming has something to do with it, as they determined with Katrina and the disaster in New Orleans. Some of the areas that flooded are considered to be prone to flooding every 100 years, but the last time there was severe flooding along the Mississippi was in 1993, just 15 years ago. I heard that new levees are being built each year along the Mississippi, and considering how frequently the river rises in this era of climate change, and how often these levees fail, this seems absurd. When will we humans stop living in areas that are prone to flooding, and stop thinking levees - or God - will protect us?
The House of Representatives passed the "FISA Compromise," Barack Obama released a statement saying he would support it, and the progressive community is pissed. I haven't read the bill and wonder how many in Congress have. I do know that it gives immunity to telecom companies for their cooperation with the Bush administration in its illegal wiretapping program, portions of which the Congress has now agreed to make legal. It does, apparently, give Bush most of what he wants, which to progressives is always a bad thing, as progressives do not think this president does anything unless it helps his buddies or himself, and believe most of what he does violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution. I agree, and I wish Obama would have stood up to the president. More than that, I wish the Congress would stand up to the president. Maybe someday we will know the real reason why they didn't. But progressives shouldn't condemn Obama for this decision. As a legislator, he sees the writing on the wall, and knows the bill will most likely pass. As a presidential candidate, he doesn't want to give the Republicans ammunition to call him "soft on terrorism," and as a future president, he wants to have sufficient powers to fight terrorism. We can hope, however, that as a president he won't abuse those powers. The way I see it, the passage of this bill is even more reason to support Obama. Can you imagine a President McCain with these powers?
Tim Russert was buried. I had mixed feelings about Tim Russert as moderator of Meet the Press. Sometimes (mostly when he was grilling someone I didn't respect) I liked him. Other times (when he grilled one of my guys) I didn't. I stopped watching him for a while, especially when he spent a full hour with each of the primary candidates, as I just couldn't listen to an entire hour of spin and deception. When he died a week ago, unexpectedly at the age of 58, while working at the NBC studios, I felt sadness for his family, and after days of tribute, for his colleagues as well. But what struck me most about the tributes I heard is that they painted a picture of a really good man, a man who was always available for his friends, always there to lend a hand, always ready to offer encouragement. More than a great bureau chief, or host of a popular television program, Tim Russert was an example of a really good and decent person, a devout Irish Catholic with a great sense of humor, who loved sports as much as he loved work, but who mostly just loved the people around him, all of whom he considered family. MSNBC was criticized for its non-stop coverage of his death and funeral - which lasted from Friday afternoon until the funeral on Wednesday - but after hearing the stories about how he was always the first to help a friend in need, I can understand why they couldn't stop talking about him. NBC will find a new Washington bureau chief, and a new moderator of Meet the Press - no one is indispensable in that respect - but those close to him will not find a replacement for the great role model and friend they lost.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The power of unconscious bigotry
When the history of this presidential race is written, there will be much said about the influence of both sexism and racism on the outcome.
Already much being is being written and said about sexism in the media and how it may have negatively impacted Senator Clinton's campaign. Certainly, there were sexist comments on the cable shows, and in the blogs, but I'm not sure how much sexism factored into voting. I'm not sure we will ever know, in that the media has not focused on polls that tried to measure the effect of gender on voting. By way of contrast, they have looked at polls that asked primary voters whether race was a factor in their vote.
In one CBS poll of voting in Pennsylvania, voters were asked about both race and gender as possible factors in their voting. The findings:
So, according to this poll at least, gender was a strong reason why people voted for Clinton, while race was a strong factor in why white people voted against Obama.
The media, especially the cable outlets, certainly displayed some ugly sexist commentary, and much less (from my observation) blatant racism. But how this plays out in actual influence on voters seems to be a different story. Decent people were mostly repulsed by the sexism they saw on television and the internet, as they would have been, I believe, by blatant racist comments, had they occurred.
We did not see many overt racist comments, however, mainly because they are so swiftly identified and punished, as they were with Don Imus last year. There were, though, covert racist attacks against Obama. For example, the FOX News highlighting of Obama's middle name, and the huge coverage of the outrageous statements of Jeremiah Wright (in contrast to the much briefer coverage of the equally outrageous statements of pastors supporting Senator McCain), are covert ways of scaring voters into rejecting Obama. A black pastor was portrayed as scarier than a white pastor, and an Arabic middle name hinted that Obama must be a Muslim. Combine that rumor with assorted internet rumors about Obama's schooling and family, and the connection of Obama's pastor with Louis Farrakhan, and you are playing guilt by association, and portraying Obama as a black Muslim who is unacceptable to white America – all without ever uttering a racial slur or talking about Obama's skin color.
It seems to me that this kind of coded racist attack on Obama is far more damaging than any boorish sexist comments against Senator Clinton. The sexism of the media may actually have strengthened her image in the electorate, as many people rejected and criticized it. However, the coded attacks on Obama were not attacked as racist by the media or regular voters. Why? Because there are many voters who don't think there's anything unusual or odd about feeling uneasy about a black nominee for president. These people do not consider themselves racist or prejudiced in any way, yet there is something in them that sees African Americans as different, foreign, and not "one of us." Barack Obama spoke to this when he talked about his white grandmother wanting to cross the street when she saw a black man walking towards her.
My elderly mother, one of the kindest and caring people I know, a woman who would help anyone in need, asked me yesterday if I thought a presidential victory by Obama would mean "the blacks would take over everything."
After I picked myself up off the floor, I expressed complete horror at what she said, as I have never known her to express racial prejudice.
She said "Well, they were treated pretty badly by the white people. Maybe they would want to have power over them."
We didn't get into a discussion as we were getting ready to go to the doctor, but I have thought a lot about what she said and wondered whether it was indicative of what a lot of people of her generation are thinking.
I remember a few weeks ago, when Barack Obama was a guest on The Daily Show, John Stewart asked him the following tongue-in-cheek question: "Sir, if you become president will you enslave the white race?" The audience got a good laugh, but what if this is a real fear, not just a joke on The Daily Show?
If my mother is any indication, Barack Obama may have a real problem becoming president. While younger and more educated voters have little problem with Obama's race, older Americans, good and decent people like my mother, even those who would never say or do anything overtly racist, still harbor unconscious negative thoughts and feelings about African Americans that may make them unwilling to vote for Barack Obama.
So while it cannot be denied that overt sexist comments were used against Hillary Clinton, it is also true that covert racist campaigns are being waged against Obama. These campaigns work, in part, because unconscious, irrational fears and negative appraisals of African Americans still lurk in the psyches of many white Americans.
This election will, to some extent, be a test of whether there are enough young and enlightened voters to outnumber those who, whether consciously or only unconsciously, carry the last remnants of our nation's hideous history of racial bigotry.
Already much being is being written and said about sexism in the media and how it may have negatively impacted Senator Clinton's campaign. Certainly, there were sexist comments on the cable shows, and in the blogs, but I'm not sure how much sexism factored into voting. I'm not sure we will ever know, in that the media has not focused on polls that tried to measure the effect of gender on voting. By way of contrast, they have looked at polls that asked primary voters whether race was a factor in their vote.
In one CBS poll of voting in Pennsylvania, voters were asked about both race and gender as possible factors in their voting. The findings:
About one in five voters said the race of the candidates was among the top factors in their vote. About as many said that about the candidates' gender. White voters who said race was a factor supported Clinton over Obama by 3-to-1, while whites who said race wasn't a factor divided between Clinton and Obama more evenly. But race and gender played out as factors in very different ways, with Obama's race apparently a negative for him among white voters, while Clinton's gender was a positive factor for her among men and women who said it contributed to their votes. Those who said gender was a factor actually tended to favor Clinton, while Obama did better among those who said gender was not a factor.
So, according to this poll at least, gender was a strong reason why people voted for Clinton, while race was a strong factor in why white people voted against Obama.
The media, especially the cable outlets, certainly displayed some ugly sexist commentary, and much less (from my observation) blatant racism. But how this plays out in actual influence on voters seems to be a different story. Decent people were mostly repulsed by the sexism they saw on television and the internet, as they would have been, I believe, by blatant racist comments, had they occurred.
We did not see many overt racist comments, however, mainly because they are so swiftly identified and punished, as they were with Don Imus last year. There were, though, covert racist attacks against Obama. For example, the FOX News highlighting of Obama's middle name, and the huge coverage of the outrageous statements of Jeremiah Wright (in contrast to the much briefer coverage of the equally outrageous statements of pastors supporting Senator McCain), are covert ways of scaring voters into rejecting Obama. A black pastor was portrayed as scarier than a white pastor, and an Arabic middle name hinted that Obama must be a Muslim. Combine that rumor with assorted internet rumors about Obama's schooling and family, and the connection of Obama's pastor with Louis Farrakhan, and you are playing guilt by association, and portraying Obama as a black Muslim who is unacceptable to white America – all without ever uttering a racial slur or talking about Obama's skin color.
It seems to me that this kind of coded racist attack on Obama is far more damaging than any boorish sexist comments against Senator Clinton. The sexism of the media may actually have strengthened her image in the electorate, as many people rejected and criticized it. However, the coded attacks on Obama were not attacked as racist by the media or regular voters. Why? Because there are many voters who don't think there's anything unusual or odd about feeling uneasy about a black nominee for president. These people do not consider themselves racist or prejudiced in any way, yet there is something in them that sees African Americans as different, foreign, and not "one of us." Barack Obama spoke to this when he talked about his white grandmother wanting to cross the street when she saw a black man walking towards her.
My elderly mother, one of the kindest and caring people I know, a woman who would help anyone in need, asked me yesterday if I thought a presidential victory by Obama would mean "the blacks would take over everything."
After I picked myself up off the floor, I expressed complete horror at what she said, as I have never known her to express racial prejudice.
She said "Well, they were treated pretty badly by the white people. Maybe they would want to have power over them."
We didn't get into a discussion as we were getting ready to go to the doctor, but I have thought a lot about what she said and wondered whether it was indicative of what a lot of people of her generation are thinking.
I remember a few weeks ago, when Barack Obama was a guest on The Daily Show, John Stewart asked him the following tongue-in-cheek question: "Sir, if you become president will you enslave the white race?" The audience got a good laugh, but what if this is a real fear, not just a joke on The Daily Show?
If my mother is any indication, Barack Obama may have a real problem becoming president. While younger and more educated voters have little problem with Obama's race, older Americans, good and decent people like my mother, even those who would never say or do anything overtly racist, still harbor unconscious negative thoughts and feelings about African Americans that may make them unwilling to vote for Barack Obama.
So while it cannot be denied that overt sexist comments were used against Hillary Clinton, it is also true that covert racist campaigns are being waged against Obama. These campaigns work, in part, because unconscious, irrational fears and negative appraisals of African Americans still lurk in the psyches of many white Americans.
This election will, to some extent, be a test of whether there are enough young and enlightened voters to outnumber those who, whether consciously or only unconsciously, carry the last remnants of our nation's hideous history of racial bigotry.
Friday, June 6, 2008
An astrophysicist makes a final argument for Hillary
Neil Degrasse Tyson is a scientist and host of PBS's Nova Science Now. I have enjoyed his program immensely. However, I was quite disappointed in his op-ed in the New York Times today in which he intimates that Democratic voters are choosing the wrong candidate in Barack Obama. His reason: Statistical analysis and computer modeling of polling data show that if the election were held today Hillary Clinton would win the general election against John McCain and Barack Obama would lose.
The computer model of polling data Tyson refers to was created by two astrophysicists, using data they gathered prior to the 2004 general election. What Tyson, also an astrophysicist, does is apply this model to the primary election. He uses a complicated system which involves the use of polls in states where they are available, and the use of the 2004 election results when there are no polls available.
His premise, analysis, conclusion and question are so absurd that I have to refute each one of them, not from the perspective of an astrophysicist, which I am not, or from the perspective of a political scientist, which none of us are, but from the perspective of an expert in human behavior, which they are not and I am.
Tyson says: "One of the tasks of scientists is to clarify the apparent complexity of the universe by using the language of mathematics." This may be true in the hard sciences, but not the soft sciences, like psychology and political science, where the unpredictability of events and human emotion have profound effects. While some human behavior is predictable, much of it is not, and in politics, as we have observed, unexpected things happen that change a voter's opinion over the months preceding a general election.
Tyson's premise is that we can use statistical analysis of past events to predict future events, not of how the stars and planets behave, but of how humans behave. Since human behavior is always changing, and events humans must respond to are always in flux, this is a false premise.
Tyson's analysis is flawed in that he analyzes data preceding a primary election with a computer model that has been developed for and used prior to a general election. Not only is there a time difference here, in that many events can intervene to affect voters' minds between the primary and the general election, but there is also a different level of attention. Many more people are paying attention to the candidates prior to the general election than they are prior to the primary elections. Furthermore, it is absurd to think that a model used to explain what happened prior to a general election, based on polls preceding that election, can be used to explain what will happen in a future general election, based on polls taken before a primary election. Dr. Tyson is not only comparing apples and oranges, he is taking information about this year's apples and applying it to next year's oranges.
Tyson used "the simple rules established by Professor Gott and Dr. Colley: in states in which a poll has not been taken, you give that state to the party that won it in 2004. You do the same for states where the median poll is a tie." Here there is a flawed assumption, an assumption that nothing much changes in states between elections. Red states stay red and blue states stay blue. Political observers are already seeing a change in the electorate as they characterize more and more states as "purple," meaning more states are up for grabs than ever before. You cannot use the 2000 and 2004 electoral maps and expect that it will be repeated with any certainly, especially considering the work Howard Dean has done in the interim, implementing a 50 state strategy, and the work Obama has done in making inroads into formerly red states.
Finally, with respect to Tyson's analysis, there are factors in this race that have never existed before. We have never seen a president with a 25% approval rating, nor 81% of voters who believe the country is on the wrong track. Nor have we ever had a major party nominee other than a white male. Surely, these factors could confound the results of any computer model.
Since Tyson's premise and analysis are flawed, it stands to reason that his conclusion is flawed. Hillary Clinton would win the election if it were held today, he says. I don't think his mathematical model comes close to proving that, but even if it did, so what? It says absolutely nothing about who will win five months from now, when the public has gotten to know the candidates better. And herein lies another problem with Tyson's analysis. The voters are far more familiar with Clinton and McCain than they are with Obama. That will be different in five months.
What will also be different in five months is how the Republican smear machine will or will not have hurt the Democratic candidate, or will have backfired. Tyson may think the smear machine against Obama would only make a Clinton victory more likely, but he is not considering the smear machine the Republicans would gin up against Clinton. Can he possibly forget the ugliness of the impeachment proceedings against her husband? Can he honestly think the Republicans would not use this against Clinton? Is he unaware of Bill's secret business dealings and undisclosed contributions to his presidential library? The Clintons have baggage, and there is no doubt in my mind that McCain's team would unload on her, lessening her chances for victory.
And while this may seem out of the question to Tyson, it is possible that the more people get to know about McCain's voting record and policy positions, the less they will like him. This long Democratic campaign season has kept the focus off of McCain. Now that we have a Democratic nominee, it is likely the press will finally give some attention to McCain, and the multiple mistakes he has made that have stayed under the radar will start coming to light. McCain's higher poll numbers against Obama are in part a result of his not having much press scrutiny to date. That, of course, will change.
Now to Tyson's question. He asks "what does it say of the Democratic delegate selection system when its winner would lose the presidency if an election were held today, yet its loser would win it?" I can hardly express how ridiculous I believe this question to be, and how inappropriate it is to ask it after the nominee has already been chosen. I have to say it makes the good professor sound like a die-hard Clinton supporter who is disgruntled that the young Obama defeated her. Nevertheless, I am going to attempt to answer his question.
"What does it say"?" It says that Democratic voters cast their ballots on the basis of something other than mathematical models. It says that Democratic voters look at the candidates and vote for the one they want to see in the White House. It says that Democratic voters this year decided they wanted the change candidate more than the candidate who already spent eight years in the White House, married to a man who shamed the Party and the nation. It says that Democratic voters have hope, and believe in the ability of a gifted young politician to win over voters before the general election, just as he had won over voters in all the states in which he vigorously campaigned.
Four years ago, a majority of Democratic voters decided to vote with their heads rather than their hearts. While there was tremendous enthusiasm for both John Edwards and Howard Dean in 2003 and early 2004, by the first caucus in Iowa voters had decided to go with the candidate that they thought could defeat Bush, even though he didn't excite them. They may not have had a statistical model to guide them, but they were sure Kerry's Vietnam War hero bona fides would ensure his victory over Bush, who had been AWOL during part of his service in the Texas Air National Guard, which daddy Bush got him into so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam. They picked the man they thought was a sure winner, just as Tyson is sure Clinton would be a sure winner. And as we all know, Kerry lost.
This year, the Democrats had two strong candidates, a woman and an African American. Both are the first candidates of their gender and race to get this far, and the candidacy of either one of them, because of that, would confound pollsters and statistical models.
This is a different year. People are looking at an entirely different kind of race than the fifty-four previous ones. We have no idea what might happen. But some of us, those who voted for Obama, are convinced he can overcome the misinformation about him, the prejudice against him, the old red-state, blue-state divide, and the conventional wisdom which guides pundits and even, apparently, astrophysicists.
Would Dr. Tyson really have us vote as robots, using computer models to determine our vote, or would he rather allow this to proceed as a real contest for the hearts and minds of the American people, a process that has a great deal of suspense and uncertainty associated with it? If Democracy means anything at all, it means that we choose our candidates on a number of factors, that we expect our candidates to have a conversation with us to help us choose, and that we are able to make up our own minds. We have five months ahead of us for this process to unfold.
If Dr. Tyson cares at all about this country, he might start by encouraging people to pay attention to the issues as well as the skills of the presidential candidates and not lament that the Democrats did not use a statistical model to choose their nominee. And were he to study disciplines other than astrophysics, he might learn that on this planet, and in human behavior, nothing stays the same. There are unpredictable forces that always upset mathematical models, and one of them is the human will.
The computer model of polling data Tyson refers to was created by two astrophysicists, using data they gathered prior to the 2004 general election. What Tyson, also an astrophysicist, does is apply this model to the primary election. He uses a complicated system which involves the use of polls in states where they are available, and the use of the 2004 election results when there are no polls available.
His premise, analysis, conclusion and question are so absurd that I have to refute each one of them, not from the perspective of an astrophysicist, which I am not, or from the perspective of a political scientist, which none of us are, but from the perspective of an expert in human behavior, which they are not and I am.
Tyson says: "One of the tasks of scientists is to clarify the apparent complexity of the universe by using the language of mathematics." This may be true in the hard sciences, but not the soft sciences, like psychology and political science, where the unpredictability of events and human emotion have profound effects. While some human behavior is predictable, much of it is not, and in politics, as we have observed, unexpected things happen that change a voter's opinion over the months preceding a general election.
Tyson's premise is that we can use statistical analysis of past events to predict future events, not of how the stars and planets behave, but of how humans behave. Since human behavior is always changing, and events humans must respond to are always in flux, this is a false premise.
Tyson's analysis is flawed in that he analyzes data preceding a primary election with a computer model that has been developed for and used prior to a general election. Not only is there a time difference here, in that many events can intervene to affect voters' minds between the primary and the general election, but there is also a different level of attention. Many more people are paying attention to the candidates prior to the general election than they are prior to the primary elections. Furthermore, it is absurd to think that a model used to explain what happened prior to a general election, based on polls preceding that election, can be used to explain what will happen in a future general election, based on polls taken before a primary election. Dr. Tyson is not only comparing apples and oranges, he is taking information about this year's apples and applying it to next year's oranges.
Tyson used "the simple rules established by Professor Gott and Dr. Colley: in states in which a poll has not been taken, you give that state to the party that won it in 2004. You do the same for states where the median poll is a tie." Here there is a flawed assumption, an assumption that nothing much changes in states between elections. Red states stay red and blue states stay blue. Political observers are already seeing a change in the electorate as they characterize more and more states as "purple," meaning more states are up for grabs than ever before. You cannot use the 2000 and 2004 electoral maps and expect that it will be repeated with any certainly, especially considering the work Howard Dean has done in the interim, implementing a 50 state strategy, and the work Obama has done in making inroads into formerly red states.
Finally, with respect to Tyson's analysis, there are factors in this race that have never existed before. We have never seen a president with a 25% approval rating, nor 81% of voters who believe the country is on the wrong track. Nor have we ever had a major party nominee other than a white male. Surely, these factors could confound the results of any computer model.
Since Tyson's premise and analysis are flawed, it stands to reason that his conclusion is flawed. Hillary Clinton would win the election if it were held today, he says. I don't think his mathematical model comes close to proving that, but even if it did, so what? It says absolutely nothing about who will win five months from now, when the public has gotten to know the candidates better. And herein lies another problem with Tyson's analysis. The voters are far more familiar with Clinton and McCain than they are with Obama. That will be different in five months.
What will also be different in five months is how the Republican smear machine will or will not have hurt the Democratic candidate, or will have backfired. Tyson may think the smear machine against Obama would only make a Clinton victory more likely, but he is not considering the smear machine the Republicans would gin up against Clinton. Can he possibly forget the ugliness of the impeachment proceedings against her husband? Can he honestly think the Republicans would not use this against Clinton? Is he unaware of Bill's secret business dealings and undisclosed contributions to his presidential library? The Clintons have baggage, and there is no doubt in my mind that McCain's team would unload on her, lessening her chances for victory.
And while this may seem out of the question to Tyson, it is possible that the more people get to know about McCain's voting record and policy positions, the less they will like him. This long Democratic campaign season has kept the focus off of McCain. Now that we have a Democratic nominee, it is likely the press will finally give some attention to McCain, and the multiple mistakes he has made that have stayed under the radar will start coming to light. McCain's higher poll numbers against Obama are in part a result of his not having much press scrutiny to date. That, of course, will change.
Now to Tyson's question. He asks "what does it say of the Democratic delegate selection system when its winner would lose the presidency if an election were held today, yet its loser would win it?" I can hardly express how ridiculous I believe this question to be, and how inappropriate it is to ask it after the nominee has already been chosen. I have to say it makes the good professor sound like a die-hard Clinton supporter who is disgruntled that the young Obama defeated her. Nevertheless, I am going to attempt to answer his question.
"What does it say"?" It says that Democratic voters cast their ballots on the basis of something other than mathematical models. It says that Democratic voters look at the candidates and vote for the one they want to see in the White House. It says that Democratic voters this year decided they wanted the change candidate more than the candidate who already spent eight years in the White House, married to a man who shamed the Party and the nation. It says that Democratic voters have hope, and believe in the ability of a gifted young politician to win over voters before the general election, just as he had won over voters in all the states in which he vigorously campaigned.
Four years ago, a majority of Democratic voters decided to vote with their heads rather than their hearts. While there was tremendous enthusiasm for both John Edwards and Howard Dean in 2003 and early 2004, by the first caucus in Iowa voters had decided to go with the candidate that they thought could defeat Bush, even though he didn't excite them. They may not have had a statistical model to guide them, but they were sure Kerry's Vietnam War hero bona fides would ensure his victory over Bush, who had been AWOL during part of his service in the Texas Air National Guard, which daddy Bush got him into so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam. They picked the man they thought was a sure winner, just as Tyson is sure Clinton would be a sure winner. And as we all know, Kerry lost.
This year, the Democrats had two strong candidates, a woman and an African American. Both are the first candidates of their gender and race to get this far, and the candidacy of either one of them, because of that, would confound pollsters and statistical models.
This is a different year. People are looking at an entirely different kind of race than the fifty-four previous ones. We have no idea what might happen. But some of us, those who voted for Obama, are convinced he can overcome the misinformation about him, the prejudice against him, the old red-state, blue-state divide, and the conventional wisdom which guides pundits and even, apparently, astrophysicists.
Would Dr. Tyson really have us vote as robots, using computer models to determine our vote, or would he rather allow this to proceed as a real contest for the hearts and minds of the American people, a process that has a great deal of suspense and uncertainty associated with it? If Democracy means anything at all, it means that we choose our candidates on a number of factors, that we expect our candidates to have a conversation with us to help us choose, and that we are able to make up our own minds. We have five months ahead of us for this process to unfold.
If Dr. Tyson cares at all about this country, he might start by encouraging people to pay attention to the issues as well as the skills of the presidential candidates and not lament that the Democrats did not use a statistical model to choose their nominee. And were he to study disciplines other than astrophysics, he might learn that on this planet, and in human behavior, nothing stays the same. There are unpredictable forces that always upset mathematical models, and one of them is the human will.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Voting on the basis of race and gender
This morning on MSNBC, columnist Richard Cohen and regular contributor Pat Buchanan were arguing about what constitutes "racism" and what is simply "voting for your tribe," as Buchanan called it.
Cohen said that this election exposed the racism that is still in this country but that has not been talked about in a long time. He cites exit polls in many Appalachian states where white voters said race had played a role in their choice of candidates, and of these a majority voted for Hillary Clinton.
Buchanan said he saw no difference between blacks in Philadelphia voting for Barack because he is black and whites in West Virginia voting for Hillary because she is white.
Cohen replied that the difference was that many whites in West Virginia were actually voting against Barack because of his race, while in Philly blacks may have been voting for Barack because of his race, but were not voting against Hillary because of either race or gender.
Pat Buchanan is not the only white commentator, nor white American, who fails to see a distinction between African American citizens voting for a fellow black American and white citizens voting for a fellow white American. They are both examples of voting for your tribe and should be seen as perfectly acceptable, according to Buchanan.
I almost don't know how to respond to this. It's one of those things that no matter how you argue it, the other side simply does not get it. But I will try.
First off, blacks have more often than not voted for white candidates, sometimes because the white candidate was better than the black candidate, sometimes because the white candidate was the only candidate. In presidential contests, there have been very few black candidates an African American could vote for. The fact that for the first time in the history of this country there is the actual possibility that an African American could become president is something extraordinary, and it seems logical to me that a majority (though not all) of African Americans would see this as a historic opportunity to elect one of their own. The large majorities of women who support Hillary Clinton feel exactly the same way about voting for a woman for the first time.
It should be said that African Americans are not voting overwhelmingly for Barack Obama just because he is black, but also because he is a gifted candidate. Indeed, he could not have gotten as far as he has were he not extraordinary. The same is true for Hillary Clinton. She could not have gotten as far as she has were she not extremely bright and highly talented. Women and men who voted for Hillary at least in part because they wanted to elect a woman to the presidency are voting honorably. (I might add here that the intelligence and skills of the two Democratic candidates are of a completely different caliber than that of John McCain, who is a mediocre talent at best, no matter how compelling his personal story.)
But somehow voting for Hillary Clinton, or John McCain, or any other white candidate, just because they are white, as voting for John McCain or Mike Huckabee or any other white male, just because they are white and male, has an element of prejudice about it. There's nothing wrong with voting for any candidate because you think they would make a good president, regardless of race or gender, but to vote for one gender or one race because you have a bias against the skin color or anatomy of the other candidate is something different.
Pat Buchanan wants to act as if we are a country with no history of racial hatred and violence. He wants to see the actions, thoughts, and history of white Americans as completely analagous to the actions, thoughts and history of black Americans and this is to completely ignore reality.
Pat knows as well as anyone that this country has a long history of discriminating against people based on the color of their skin, a history that began with white Americans owning African American slaves. Ever since then, it has been a struggle for African Americans to be treated as well as their white counterparts. First slavery had to be outlawed and the slaves emancipated, then segregation eliminated and Jim Crow laws overturned. Then voting rights had to be legally protected. The job isn't finished, however. Deep in the hearts of some people in this country, the color of one's skin determines how worthy a human being you are. This is something that cannot be overcome with laws. It can only be overcome with education and inspiration, and it has not happened yet in many areas of the country, as we have discovered in this primary season.
Those white voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in West Virginia and other Appalachian states, who said race played a role in their vote, were making a statement about their lingering attitude towards people whose skin is dark. Many of these same people would not vote for Hillary Clinton in the Fall were she the Democratic nominee, because they would actually prefer a white male like John McCain. Since they didn't have a white male candidate, they chose a white female candidate. In the lingering caste system they live by, a white male is superior to a white female, but a white female is superior to a black male.
It is different with black voters, who are far more willing to vote for the white candidate. Even the exit polls showed that far more Obama supporters said they would vote for Hillary in the Fall if she were the nominee, than Hillary supporters said they would vote for Barack. This was especially true among voters who said race played a role in their choice of candidate.
Wanting to vote for the first female nominee for president if you are a woman, or the first black nominee for president if you are African American, is understandable. There is nothing prejudiced about it. Blacks have been voting for white presidential nominees for decades and women have been voting for male candidates since 1893, but this is the first year either group has actually had an opportunity to vote for a viable candidate of their race or gender. This year blacks didn't all of a sudden become prejudiced against whites (although Obama's opponents will try to use the comments made by pastors in his former church to make the case that his supporters are "racist") or females prejudiced against males. This is simply the first year these constituencies actually had a choice other than a white male, and they felt pride in those candidates.
Certain groups of white voters, on the other hand, who voted against Obama because of his race, were doing something completely different than voting on the basis of pride in their candidate. They were voting against a candidate because they did not see him as worthy, based only on his race.
If Pat Buchanan cannnot see this, perhaps it is because he shares their prejudice.
Cohen said that this election exposed the racism that is still in this country but that has not been talked about in a long time. He cites exit polls in many Appalachian states where white voters said race had played a role in their choice of candidates, and of these a majority voted for Hillary Clinton.
Buchanan said he saw no difference between blacks in Philadelphia voting for Barack because he is black and whites in West Virginia voting for Hillary because she is white.
Cohen replied that the difference was that many whites in West Virginia were actually voting against Barack because of his race, while in Philly blacks may have been voting for Barack because of his race, but were not voting against Hillary because of either race or gender.
Pat Buchanan is not the only white commentator, nor white American, who fails to see a distinction between African American citizens voting for a fellow black American and white citizens voting for a fellow white American. They are both examples of voting for your tribe and should be seen as perfectly acceptable, according to Buchanan.
I almost don't know how to respond to this. It's one of those things that no matter how you argue it, the other side simply does not get it. But I will try.
First off, blacks have more often than not voted for white candidates, sometimes because the white candidate was better than the black candidate, sometimes because the white candidate was the only candidate. In presidential contests, there have been very few black candidates an African American could vote for. The fact that for the first time in the history of this country there is the actual possibility that an African American could become president is something extraordinary, and it seems logical to me that a majority (though not all) of African Americans would see this as a historic opportunity to elect one of their own. The large majorities of women who support Hillary Clinton feel exactly the same way about voting for a woman for the first time.
It should be said that African Americans are not voting overwhelmingly for Barack Obama just because he is black, but also because he is a gifted candidate. Indeed, he could not have gotten as far as he has were he not extraordinary. The same is true for Hillary Clinton. She could not have gotten as far as she has were she not extremely bright and highly talented. Women and men who voted for Hillary at least in part because they wanted to elect a woman to the presidency are voting honorably. (I might add here that the intelligence and skills of the two Democratic candidates are of a completely different caliber than that of John McCain, who is a mediocre talent at best, no matter how compelling his personal story.)
But somehow voting for Hillary Clinton, or John McCain, or any other white candidate, just because they are white, as voting for John McCain or Mike Huckabee or any other white male, just because they are white and male, has an element of prejudice about it. There's nothing wrong with voting for any candidate because you think they would make a good president, regardless of race or gender, but to vote for one gender or one race because you have a bias against the skin color or anatomy of the other candidate is something different.
Pat Buchanan wants to act as if we are a country with no history of racial hatred and violence. He wants to see the actions, thoughts, and history of white Americans as completely analagous to the actions, thoughts and history of black Americans and this is to completely ignore reality.
Pat knows as well as anyone that this country has a long history of discriminating against people based on the color of their skin, a history that began with white Americans owning African American slaves. Ever since then, it has been a struggle for African Americans to be treated as well as their white counterparts. First slavery had to be outlawed and the slaves emancipated, then segregation eliminated and Jim Crow laws overturned. Then voting rights had to be legally protected. The job isn't finished, however. Deep in the hearts of some people in this country, the color of one's skin determines how worthy a human being you are. This is something that cannot be overcome with laws. It can only be overcome with education and inspiration, and it has not happened yet in many areas of the country, as we have discovered in this primary season.
Those white voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in West Virginia and other Appalachian states, who said race played a role in their vote, were making a statement about their lingering attitude towards people whose skin is dark. Many of these same people would not vote for Hillary Clinton in the Fall were she the Democratic nominee, because they would actually prefer a white male like John McCain. Since they didn't have a white male candidate, they chose a white female candidate. In the lingering caste system they live by, a white male is superior to a white female, but a white female is superior to a black male.
It is different with black voters, who are far more willing to vote for the white candidate. Even the exit polls showed that far more Obama supporters said they would vote for Hillary in the Fall if she were the nominee, than Hillary supporters said they would vote for Barack. This was especially true among voters who said race played a role in their choice of candidate.
Wanting to vote for the first female nominee for president if you are a woman, or the first black nominee for president if you are African American, is understandable. There is nothing prejudiced about it. Blacks have been voting for white presidential nominees for decades and women have been voting for male candidates since 1893, but this is the first year either group has actually had an opportunity to vote for a viable candidate of their race or gender. This year blacks didn't all of a sudden become prejudiced against whites (although Obama's opponents will try to use the comments made by pastors in his former church to make the case that his supporters are "racist") or females prejudiced against males. This is simply the first year these constituencies actually had a choice other than a white male, and they felt pride in those candidates.
Certain groups of white voters, on the other hand, who voted against Obama because of his race, were doing something completely different than voting on the basis of pride in their candidate. They were voting against a candidate because they did not see him as worthy, based only on his race.
If Pat Buchanan cannnot see this, perhaps it is because he shares their prejudice.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Delusionists
This is a big week for politicos living with and promoting delusions.
Lanny Davis and the Clintonistas continue to insist Hillary will win the nomination with help from Florida and Michigan (whose delegations they believe will be seated with full voting power), the lead in the popular vote, and help from the superdelegates who will flock to Hill because Gallup says she will do better than Obama in the general election.
The Bush White House, with an assist from retired press secretaries, insists they are "puzzled" and "shocked" by Scott McClellan's book in which he reveals what thinking people already knew: the Bush White House lied to the people. These robotic spokespersons continue to insist that Bush did not lie or mislead the people, because he was given flawed intellligence, which he believed.
The RNC is saying Barack Obama is not qualified to be commander in chief because he spoke of his "uncle" being part of the army team that liberated Auschwitz, when it was actually his great uncle liberating Buchenwald, which the RNC says was not a "concentration camp" but a "labor camp."
It isn't that hard to expose and refute these delusions:
Hillary is not going to win the nomination. At this moment, with three contests left, including Puerto Rico which cannot vote in the general election, she is behind in elected delegates, with no possibility of catching up, behind in superdelegates, many of whom are secretly pledged to Obama and will declare after Tuesday, and behind in the popular vote. The only possible way Hillary can overtake Obama in the popular vote is with Hill-math (you have no idea how tempting it is to call it "Hill-Billy-math"). Hill-math counts all the votes for Hillary in Michigan and gives none to Obama because his name was not on the ballot. Hill-math does not count the popular vote in four caucus states, three of which Obama won. Hill-math counts the popular vote in Puerto Rico, which cannot vote in November.
As for the Gallup poll giving the advantage to Hillary in the blue states and the head to head matchup with McCain, every day there are polls that show Obama leading McCain, Obama leading in those same blue states, and Obama leading in many red or purple states that would give him the victory over McCain even if he lost some of those blue states. Lanny Davis wants us to believe that one poll (Gallup) taken today are perfect predictors of who would win in November, but polls vary, and polls from previous years have been notoriously wrong this early in the season. Barack Obama has consistently shown that when he campaigns vigorously in a state over an extended time period, he wins.
As for the White House's "puzzlement" over Scott McClellan ratting them out, the only way they could be puzzled is if they truly believed in all the propaganda this W.H. has spewed out over eight years. Some probably do, and they are delusional, just as McClellan apparently was while press secretary, but others know better and are just reciting the talking points. Scott McClellan isn't telling well informed Americans anything new, except that it is possible for one Bushie to be cured of his delusion and write about it. Furthermore, if the White House still thinks the American people believe the Iraq War was all about weapons of mass destruction, and the president can be forgiven for waging this "preventative" war because he was given false intelligence, then the White House remains in the grip of the biggest delusion of all time. The American people have turned against this war not just because it is too costly, which it is, but also because they know the president went to war for reasons other than weapons of mass destruction, delusional reasons having to do with remaking the map of the Middle East, securing access to oil, and ushering in the neoconservative dream of the "New American Century."
In light of all the "misstatements" and falsehoods perpetrated by the White House and exposed in McClellan's book, and keeping in mind all the confusion John McCain shows as he runs around the country talking about Shia when he means Sunni, and al Qaeda when he means Iran (and vice versa), it is amusing to see the RNC jumping on Obama's words. First of all, many people call a great uncle simply "uncle" so there's no big deal there, and Obama saying Auschwitz rather than Buchenwald does not seem that big a deal either. Both were death camps, in spite of the RNC trying to downplay the horrors of Buchenwald by calling it "only a work camp." Both imprisoned Jews during World War II. That Obama was a little confused about history seems not nearly as disastrous a mistake as McCain being confused about the present.
Gosh it will be wonderful to be rid of the delusionists!
Lanny Davis and the Clintonistas continue to insist Hillary will win the nomination with help from Florida and Michigan (whose delegations they believe will be seated with full voting power), the lead in the popular vote, and help from the superdelegates who will flock to Hill because Gallup says she will do better than Obama in the general election.
The Bush White House, with an assist from retired press secretaries, insists they are "puzzled" and "shocked" by Scott McClellan's book in which he reveals what thinking people already knew: the Bush White House lied to the people. These robotic spokespersons continue to insist that Bush did not lie or mislead the people, because he was given flawed intellligence, which he believed.
The RNC is saying Barack Obama is not qualified to be commander in chief because he spoke of his "uncle" being part of the army team that liberated Auschwitz, when it was actually his great uncle liberating Buchenwald, which the RNC says was not a "concentration camp" but a "labor camp."
It isn't that hard to expose and refute these delusions:
Hillary is not going to win the nomination. At this moment, with three contests left, including Puerto Rico which cannot vote in the general election, she is behind in elected delegates, with no possibility of catching up, behind in superdelegates, many of whom are secretly pledged to Obama and will declare after Tuesday, and behind in the popular vote. The only possible way Hillary can overtake Obama in the popular vote is with Hill-math (you have no idea how tempting it is to call it "Hill-Billy-math"). Hill-math counts all the votes for Hillary in Michigan and gives none to Obama because his name was not on the ballot. Hill-math does not count the popular vote in four caucus states, three of which Obama won. Hill-math counts the popular vote in Puerto Rico, which cannot vote in November.
As for the Gallup poll giving the advantage to Hillary in the blue states and the head to head matchup with McCain, every day there are polls that show Obama leading McCain, Obama leading in those same blue states, and Obama leading in many red or purple states that would give him the victory over McCain even if he lost some of those blue states. Lanny Davis wants us to believe that one poll (Gallup) taken today are perfect predictors of who would win in November, but polls vary, and polls from previous years have been notoriously wrong this early in the season. Barack Obama has consistently shown that when he campaigns vigorously in a state over an extended time period, he wins.
As for the White House's "puzzlement" over Scott McClellan ratting them out, the only way they could be puzzled is if they truly believed in all the propaganda this W.H. has spewed out over eight years. Some probably do, and they are delusional, just as McClellan apparently was while press secretary, but others know better and are just reciting the talking points. Scott McClellan isn't telling well informed Americans anything new, except that it is possible for one Bushie to be cured of his delusion and write about it. Furthermore, if the White House still thinks the American people believe the Iraq War was all about weapons of mass destruction, and the president can be forgiven for waging this "preventative" war because he was given false intelligence, then the White House remains in the grip of the biggest delusion of all time. The American people have turned against this war not just because it is too costly, which it is, but also because they know the president went to war for reasons other than weapons of mass destruction, delusional reasons having to do with remaking the map of the Middle East, securing access to oil, and ushering in the neoconservative dream of the "New American Century."
In light of all the "misstatements" and falsehoods perpetrated by the White House and exposed in McClellan's book, and keeping in mind all the confusion John McCain shows as he runs around the country talking about Shia when he means Sunni, and al Qaeda when he means Iran (and vice versa), it is amusing to see the RNC jumping on Obama's words. First of all, many people call a great uncle simply "uncle" so there's no big deal there, and Obama saying Auschwitz rather than Buchenwald does not seem that big a deal either. Both were death camps, in spite of the RNC trying to downplay the horrors of Buchenwald by calling it "only a work camp." Both imprisoned Jews during World War II. That Obama was a little confused about history seems not nearly as disastrous a mistake as McCain being confused about the present.
Gosh it will be wonderful to be rid of the delusionists!
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The evolution of an Obama suporter
The evolution of an Obama supporter.
First of two essays on why I have decided to support Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.
And it's not because I have drunk the "Kool-Aid" or am betraying my gender.
First of two essays on why I have decided to support Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.
And it's not because I have drunk the "Kool-Aid" or am betraying my gender.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Hillaryland
In Hillaryland, Hillary Clinton is losing because the nation isn't ready for a woman president, the media is sexist, and people (especially Barack Obama who didn't have the courtesy to wait his turn) haven't been fair to her.
It's not sexism that has doomed Hillary's campaign, as she is now claiming. Hillary Clinton will lose the Democratic nomination because of her flawed campaign, her wrong message, her focus on the past rather than the future, her connection to the Washington establishment, her Iraq War vote, her family name, and her behavior as a candidate.
It's not sexism that has doomed Hillary's campaign, as she is now claiming. Hillary Clinton will lose the Democratic nomination because of her flawed campaign, her wrong message, her focus on the past rather than the future, her connection to the Washington establishment, her Iraq War vote, her family name, and her behavior as a candidate.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Some things aren't funny
Yesterday, while speaking to the NRA, former Arkansas Governor and recent Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said this after hearing a loud noise offstage:
The liberal blogs are understandably outraged. To joke about anyone aiming a gun at a presidential candidate is not only bad taste, it's the kind of thing that would get you arrested at a campaign rally if you were just an ordinary citizen.
At this moment there are men surrounding Obama who have sworn to give their lives to protect him. We pay their salaries because we think it is that important to our democracy to keep our candidates from being eliminated before the ballots are even cast.
How sad that in this once enlightened country we have to do that. How sad that we do not feel so privileged, so grateful to have inherted this democracy from our ancestors that violence against a candidate, or even joking about violence against a candidate, would never happen here.
I don't know what was in the mind of Mike Huckabee. Not much, it seems, because he sure didn't give that comment much thought. Whether or not it reveals something more fundamentally flawed about this man I can't say.
But if you add this joke to the words of one person in West Virginia who, according to the Washington Post, said of Obama "hang that darky from a tree," you realize we still have serious racial problems in this country.
There are so many things to condemn about what Huckabee said. I suppose if he was out hunting with Dick Cheney and heard a loud noise and said that was Cheney shooting and everybody ducked you might be able to consider it funny, though I don't think many of us would.
But to joke about the presumptive Democratic nominee, when many of us still remember the Kennedys, the Democratic president and Democratic presidential candidate, who were assassinated in our lifetimes, is reprehensible. And when the nominee also happens to be black, when so many black leaders were assassinated in their fight for civil rights, the "joke" is beyond tasteless. It is dangerous.
I don't think Mike Huckabee is a bad person. I think he is a smart, funny, and well meaning individual. And I would imagine he deeply regrets his comments and will apologize for them. But the fact that someone this accomplished, who was recently prominent on the national stage, could be so clueless, so insensitive, and so capable of allowing something like this to come out of his mouth, tells me we still have a very long way to go in this country to overcome our inclinations to violence as well as racism.
Some things simply aren't funny. Aiming a gun at someone, and a political candidate being in fear of assassination are two of those things.
That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak. Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.
The liberal blogs are understandably outraged. To joke about anyone aiming a gun at a presidential candidate is not only bad taste, it's the kind of thing that would get you arrested at a campaign rally if you were just an ordinary citizen.
At this moment there are men surrounding Obama who have sworn to give their lives to protect him. We pay their salaries because we think it is that important to our democracy to keep our candidates from being eliminated before the ballots are even cast.
How sad that in this once enlightened country we have to do that. How sad that we do not feel so privileged, so grateful to have inherted this democracy from our ancestors that violence against a candidate, or even joking about violence against a candidate, would never happen here.
I don't know what was in the mind of Mike Huckabee. Not much, it seems, because he sure didn't give that comment much thought. Whether or not it reveals something more fundamentally flawed about this man I can't say.
But if you add this joke to the words of one person in West Virginia who, according to the Washington Post, said of Obama "hang that darky from a tree," you realize we still have serious racial problems in this country.
There are so many things to condemn about what Huckabee said. I suppose if he was out hunting with Dick Cheney and heard a loud noise and said that was Cheney shooting and everybody ducked you might be able to consider it funny, though I don't think many of us would.
But to joke about the presumptive Democratic nominee, when many of us still remember the Kennedys, the Democratic president and Democratic presidential candidate, who were assassinated in our lifetimes, is reprehensible. And when the nominee also happens to be black, when so many black leaders were assassinated in their fight for civil rights, the "joke" is beyond tasteless. It is dangerous.
I don't think Mike Huckabee is a bad person. I think he is a smart, funny, and well meaning individual. And I would imagine he deeply regrets his comments and will apologize for them. But the fact that someone this accomplished, who was recently prominent on the national stage, could be so clueless, so insensitive, and so capable of allowing something like this to come out of his mouth, tells me we still have a very long way to go in this country to overcome our inclinations to violence as well as racism.
Some things simply aren't funny. Aiming a gun at someone, and a political candidate being in fear of assassination are two of those things.
Friday, May 16, 2008
What did Neville Chamberlain do?
If you haven't seen this yet, you must see it.
Chris Matthews, who is famous for rudely interrupting his guests because he prefers to hear himself talk, actually put his interrupting prowess to good use last night. He demanded that a conservative Los Angeles talk show host, who was praising Bush's insinuation in Israel that Obama was an "appeaser" like Neville Chamberlain, tell him what it was that Neville Chamberlain did that was so wrong.
The talk show bloviator, who had apparently only recieved the memo to use the talking point that Obama was an "appeaser," could not give him an answer. He huffed and puffed and yelled and got red in the face, but could not say what Neville Chamberlain did that made him an "appeaser."
Finally Chris educated him. Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940, had appeased Hitler by giving him part of Czechoslovakia as part of the 1938 Munich Agreement. As Chris noted, there is a huge difference between talking to your enemy - as Obama wants to do - and giving in to his demands, or allowing him to claim part of a sovereign country as his own.
And other good news related to Bush's outrageous speech in Israel, Clinton supporters James Rubin and Paul Begala have both written and spoken up in defense of Obama and against Bush. And Hillary herself weighed in yesterday with her condemnation of Bush for his remarks and her support of Obama.
Hopefully, these events signal the media's willingness to present truth more than spin, and Hillary's willingness to begin the reunification of the party.
Chris Matthews, who is famous for rudely interrupting his guests because he prefers to hear himself talk, actually put his interrupting prowess to good use last night. He demanded that a conservative Los Angeles talk show host, who was praising Bush's insinuation in Israel that Obama was an "appeaser" like Neville Chamberlain, tell him what it was that Neville Chamberlain did that was so wrong.
The talk show bloviator, who had apparently only recieved the memo to use the talking point that Obama was an "appeaser," could not give him an answer. He huffed and puffed and yelled and got red in the face, but could not say what Neville Chamberlain did that made him an "appeaser."
Finally Chris educated him. Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940, had appeased Hitler by giving him part of Czechoslovakia as part of the 1938 Munich Agreement. As Chris noted, there is a huge difference between talking to your enemy - as Obama wants to do - and giving in to his demands, or allowing him to claim part of a sovereign country as his own.
And other good news related to Bush's outrageous speech in Israel, Clinton supporters James Rubin and Paul Begala have both written and spoken up in defense of Obama and against Bush. And Hillary herself weighed in yesterday with her condemnation of Bush for his remarks and her support of Obama.
Hopefully, these events signal the media's willingness to present truth more than spin, and Hillary's willingness to begin the reunification of the party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)