Andrew Young on Obama: Then and Now

NOW


THEN


Andrew Young was one of the people who truly disappointed me during the Democratic primaries not because he supported HRC, which he had every right to, but the belittling way in which he dismissed Obama's candidacy early on. He rambles in the more recent interview, but he made two very important points. It's not so much that Obama is black that's important but that he is a man of this time. "It's our time" as BHO says. The other point he makes is that Obama has a different worldview because he doesn't carry the same scars as the older generation. What Young didn't say is that the limits of the older generation's vision had been exceeded. They could see no further than having a friendly benefactor in the White House. It's no coincidence that HRC described herself with the paradigm of a Lyndon Johnson.

Here's Dick Gregory making every point that needed to be made on the matter.


To carry that point further, in conversation with an African-American friend last week, he expressed to me that Obama is free from the psychological hurt that an African-American who is the descendant of slaves and raised by an African-American woman is encumbered by. This, he explains, is not to diminish the voids, absences, and alienation Obama might have felt due to his skin color and absent father. Another African-American friend in that same discussion disagreed and said if the world sees (and treats) you like a black man, then you are. Valid perspectives both. What are we to make of the fact that Obama, as of the time of this blog posting, is doing better amongst whites than Al Gore or John Kerry did? What is clear to me is there is going to be a very interesting conversation about race post-election, nowhere more so than in the black community. As D.L. Hughley astutely observed on Larry King, the way African-Americans see themselves vis-à-vis this country is going to have to be revisited whether or not Obama wins.

The Republican Myth of Fiscal Conservatism

I'm no economist but one of the greatest falsehoods that the Republican Party gets away with is this idea that it is fiscally conservative and is for small government (By the way the DoD is part of the government). Jimmy Carter handed over a national debt of $1.8 trillion dollars to Ronald Reagan who more than doubled that figure to $3.8 trillion. Poppy Bush received the baton from Reagan and increased that debt to $5 trillion (all figures adjusted for inflation). Clinton grew that number to only $5.6 trillion (including a 0.2% decrease in his second term); not mention, he handed over a budget surplus. Over to our man George W. who took the debt to $7.4 trillion by 2007. It is now $10.5 trillion (unadjusted). For more detailed figures, click here. With all this, I don't understand how Republicans get away with this B.S. about being for small government and fiscal conservatism. The image above is from here, and the doesn't even reflect the increases from Bush's second term. Check out the link for more detailed analysis including National Debt as percentage of GDP. Perhaps someone who is more economically sophisticated can help me understand this but common sense tells me Republicans have no credibility on this issue.

Electionitis

Things I am Looking Forward to After the Elections ... if Obama Wins

1. Seeing Michelle and the Obama kids in the White House.
2. Getting my life back and ungluing myself from my TV and laptop.
3. Finding out who David Brooks, the NY Times intelligent conservative voted for.
4. Finding out who Bill Kristol, the NY Times unintelligent conservative will blame for the Republican loss (even though people like him and Ann Coulter are why people are scared of the party).
   
5. Hearing what Shelby Steele, the author of A Bound Man: Why We are Excited about Obama and Why He Can't Win, has to say.
6. Watching Sean Hannity explode from all the hate he has stored up inside (and admitting he has a man-crush on Obama).
7. Watching public celebrations around the world, especially in Africa and the African diaspora.
8. Most of all, knowing that George W. Bush is no longer at the helm.

And if Obama loses?

More to come as I think of them. Here's Bill Kristol on The Daily Show

The Tactician and the Strategist

I found it so interesting that Barack Obama and John McCain, in their first debate, had an argument over who understood tactics and who understood strategy. McCain said of Obama,

“I’m afraid Senator Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy…. And this strategy [the surge], and this general, they are winning…. There is social, economic progress, and a strategy of going into an area, clearing and holding, and the people of the county become allied with you…. That’s what’s happening in Iraq and it wasn’t a tactic.”

Obama retorts

“…I absolutely understand the difference between tactics and strategy. And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there. The question is, was this wise?”

McCain is actually wrong on this, as Joe Klein also noted,

As for McCain's remark about Obama not knowing the difference between a tactic and a strategy—McCain was wrong. The counterinsurgency methods introduced by David Petraeus in Iraq were a tactical change, a new means to achieve Bush's same strategic end of a stable, unified Iraq. If Bush had decided to partition the country, or to withdraw, that would have been a change in strategy.

The implementation of the surge is a change in tactics. Yes, General Patreus does have to think strategically about Iraq but the surge is a shift in tactics within a larger strategy for Iraq. On the next level, CENTCOM, which by the way Patreus is now taking over, has to think on the regional level and the President has to think even larger–on the global scale. As Obama said in the debate,

… Over the last eight years, this administration, along with Senator McCain, have been solely focused on Iraq. That has been their priority. That has been where all our resources have gone.

In the meantime, bin Laden is still out there. He is not captured. He is not killed. Al Qaida is resurgent.

In the meantime, we've got challenges, for example, with China, where we are borrowing billions of dollars. They now hold a trillion dollars' worth of our debt. And they are active in countries like -- in regions like Latin America, and Asia, and Africa. They are -- the conspicuousness of their presence is only matched by our absence, because we've been focused on Iraq…. What we are talking about is recognizing that the next president has to have a broader strategic vision about all the challenges that we face.

Now, that is the type of strategic thinking I would like in a president.

McCain has demonstrated throughout this campaign, that he is a tactical thinker not a strategic one, a Navy fighter pilot not an admiral (see my previous post). His campaign wages its battles day to day—win a news cycle here and there no matter what it takes (see selection of Sarah Palin, suspension of convention, suspension of campaign, threat to skip debates etc.) Obama, on the other hand, has shown himself to be a strategic campaigner. He was able to beat Hillary Clinton only because he had 50 state strategy to win both caucuses and primaries.

This distinction of tactician vs. strategist also becomes clear when you examine the different approaches they took in the debate. For McCain, it was important to win every argument, to get that last condescending jab in. In fact, I was infuriated with Obama for much of the debate for repeating “I agree with John McCain,” “John is absolutely right” and not responding aggressively to McCain’s personal attacks “Obama is naïve, doesn’t understand etc.” On a tactical level, McCain shone, until you realize that, strategically, the Obama campaign had realized that the current issue of the campaign is McCain’s temperament. Can he be portrayed as the vicious, cranky old guy rather than bipartisan leader he claims he is? Secondly, the Obama campaign realized that this election is going to be decided by Independent voters and women. Independent voters tend not to like the personal negative attacks and women (I hope this isn’t sexist) tend to like consensus builders. For Obama, then, it was more important to fulfill the strategic goal of bringing in those voting bloc rather than making his committed supporters feel good about the verbal blows he landed. Political Rope-a-dope, you might say.

America’s choice is clear, McCain the master tactician or Obama the ultimate strategist.

Maverick in the Cockpit? Hold on for Dear Life

John McCain is regularly and justifiably presented as a national hero for the years he spent in a POW camp after having being shot down as a fighter pilot in the Vietnam War. Much of that appeal, of course, taps into the mythical American image of the maverick cowboy who rides into town, accepts the sheriff's badge, chases the bad guys out of town, and rides into the sunset, preferably with the beautiful woman.

This archetypal American hero re-emerges in the movie classic Top Gun as the fighter pilot Pete "Maverick" Mitchell a.k.a. Tom Cruise. What young boy hasn't, at some point, pretend to be a cowboy or a fighter pilot. It's hard not to think here of our man George W. who, early on in his presidency, tried to convince us that he was a bonafide cowboy while clearing brush on his Crawford ranch or that he was a manly fighter pilot landing on an aircraft carrier to declare "Mission accomplished" in Iraq.



Well, if W. was playing fighter pilot, McCain was really a fighter pilot and in the past few weeks, America has gotten a foretaste of what it would be like to have a "maverick" in charge. Let me tell you, it involves lots of lurches and tonnes of bombs. Who can forget what a bombshell the selection of Sarah Palin was? Or the surprise suspension of the Republican Convention as Hurricane Gustav approached and its resumption in the most virulently partisan tone days later. Or how McCain one day was convinced the fundamentals of the economy were sound and the next was calling for the firing of the SEC chairman.

And now this, with 40 days to the election, McCain claims he is suspending his campaign (as though such a thing were even possible) and calls for the cancellation of the Presidential Debate 18 months in the making. Today at the Clinton Global Initiative, McCain quipped, “I'm an old Navy pilot, and I know when a crisis calls for all hands on deck." Again, both his allies and adversaries were caught entirely off-guard. General Wesley Clark, a few months back, got a lot of flack for suggesting that being a fighter pilot involves a different set of decision-making attributes than say an admiral. Trust me, the Navy does not hand over its nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to its fighter pilots for safe-keeping. You make a different set of decisions with 5,000 men under your care than when you're flying solo.

What we have seen in McCain's process is an extremely unpredictable leadership style that leaves the rest of the team trying to figure out what exactly is going on. Guess what? Great attributes in a dogfight, unsettling as a world leader (just ask the North Koreans). In fact, the moral of Top Gun is that the maverick endangers his team. I sure as hell don't want to wake up one morning to find out we went to war with Russia while I was sleeping.

America couldn't have a clearer set of options in selecting its next president. NPR has a piece on Obama's temperament and another on McCain's. I, for one, need to rent Top Gun again to get away from all the excitement.


Update I: To summarize, a fighter pilot is a tactician, an admiral is a strategist. Obama is a strategic thinker, McCain is all tactics all the time.

Swinging Pendelums and Cuckoo Clocks

In a recent discussion with a good friend, he wondered aloud if McCain and Obama were not simply flip sides of the same coin. In other words, could either of them really offer deep structural change? Who really believes that lobbyists are going to disappear from Washington and corporate interests will no longer hold sway over congress? What is this if not a nation of special interests? That, I'm afraid, is the nature of the beast in Washington. My friend further suggested that only Ron Paul was proposing real systemic change (note to self, pay more attention to Ron Paul). I find that, in many ways, my amigo is right. More than a few commentators have, in fact, observed that for all the talk of post-partisanship, both candidates have descended into conventionally Democratic and Republic stances. So the question is are we really going to get change with either Obama or McCain?

If my friend is right, and I am afraid he is, the new world order is going to look surprisingly like the old one and there are going to be many disappointed idealists. There is, however, a reason for this systemic resistance to change: the system is rigged to prevent rapid change in order to maintain institutional stability (or sluggishness as you may see it). The founding fathers realized that not all bright ideas turn out to be great ideas after all. Privatized social security anyone?

The advantage of the American system has been that the institution is stronger than the individual. Furthermore, the binary party system, which has resisted intrusion from third parties, is set up to accept change insofar as it is the swing of a pendulum back and forth. When the pendulum swings too far in one direction, the American people can, if they are so inclined, push it back in the other direction. See the regulation or deregulation of markets for instance.

The question for the American people is whether they want to swing the direction of the pendulum or they are asking for a new watchmaker. Ron Paul and some of his less successful counterparts certainly propose rebuilding the clock but what if they break it? The polls so far suggest that the American people want change as long as it isn't accompanied by instability: evolution not revolution. Sorry Ron Paul.

By the way, do not be confused by John McCain's presence in this election; the pendulum swing that an Obama candidacy exists to counter is the Bush administration's not John McCain's (hence Obama's attempts to declare McCain as the 3rd Bush term). McCain is sort of the cuckoo that pops out and distracts you from noticing the swinging pendulum. While fair-minded observers will credit McCain as a politician who is willing to strike it out on his own (hence the maverick label), he still has to drag the right-wing base of the Republican party along with him--witness the Republic convention and the selection of Sarah Palin.

So while Obama appears to be competing against McCain, you can only truly understand his emergence and the passion of his supporters if you see him as the anti-Bush, the pendulum swing in the other direction. For every undesirable Bush trait, he seems to offer a corrective. Where Bush appeared to make decisions impulsively and speak in simple anemic sentences, Obama appears to weigh every utterance considerably and speak in thoughtful paragraphs (an asset that is likely to be a liability in the debates). While Bush operates on the global scene like a cowboy on his ranch, Obama seems to see the global community as faculty lounge where all can be reasoned with. For Bush, the constitution is an inconvenience to be maneuvered around, while for Obama it has been object of study as a constitutional lawyer.



Obama could only happen in American politics because Bush happened in American governance. Just as Bush's mindset and worldview brought its consequences, so will Obama's modus operandi, some good, some bad. The only real question is has the pendulum swung far enough to the right for change.

The Coming Surprise

It's become quite clear, based on emerging news reports, that the Bush Administration is determined to find Osama bin Laden before the November elections (footnote: isn't it ironic that Osama bin Laden sounds phonetically like Obama n' Biden, give or take a few consonants?). It's been revealed that ground troops, specifically Navy SEALs, have been making incursions into Pakistan and the unmanned Predator strikes have increased.

Why the renewed urgency after 7 years in power? On one hand, it is fair to assume, as Sheryl Gay Stolberg does, that Bush is seeking to salvage his legacy. On the other hand, it is quite clear that Bin Laden's capture will be a net positive for Senator McCain's campaign. I am convinced that the Administration is going to try to use this as a game-changer. If my hypothesis seems far-fetched, anyone recall the serendipitous timing of the raid to rescue Ingrid Betancourt and McCain's visit to Colombia a few months ago? (A great story considering McCain was himself a POW for about the same length of time as Betancourt). Watch screenwriter and commenetator John Ridley speaking to this point on Morning Joe in July.



The Obama campaign would be well-advised to be prepared to go on offense immediately Osama bin Laden is captured so that the Republicans don't use it to their advantage. His capture should be used to reinforce the simple point that if we had focused on going after Osama rather than being diverted to Iraq, we would have made much more progress in the "war on terror."

Update I: See NPR story along these lines here.

Why John Stewart is One of My Heroes

Republicans are Officially Insane ... and Democrats are Wimps

Are you kidding me? The party that brought us Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, Katrina and "Heck of a job Brownie" is trying to get away with it? The party that brought us a dumb war in Iraq and claimed Saddam Hussein planned 9-11 is trying to hand over to themselves? A Republican Administration takes a dump on the constitution, tortures people, taps Americans' phones and yet this election is about whether Barack and Michelle Obama are American enough? About whether or not Barack is wearing a flag pin? About so-called values?

Enough of this rubbish!

Look at the morons on stage at yesterday's Republican Convention. Rudy Giuliani, whose whole strategy for winning what he must have thought was the presidency of Florida was repeating a noun, a verb and 9-11. He forgot to tell his value voters about his three divorces, his marriage to his cousin, his support for abortion rights, and the time he spent with a gay roommate after being kicked out of the state house by his ex-wife.

Mitt Romney. I quote conservative commentator David Brooks , "Mitt Romney's speech was insane." Here's the man who, as governor of Massachusetts, implemented state-wide health care now standing on the stage bashing liberals. Only, he forgot to mention that as governor of Massachusetts, he was pro-choice. Here are some direct quotes from his speech:

We need change all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big government liberals and elect John McCain!

Except we won't be throwing out a "liberal" administration but George Bush and Dick Cheney! Not only that, the congress has been in Republican hands for 6 out of the last 8 years! This, a government that received record surplus from Bill Clinton and will be passing on a record deficit, two wars, a weakened dollar and record foreclosures to the next administration. Romney continues,

It's time for the party of big ideas, not the party of Big Brother!

Brought to you by the party that wants to spy on you, decide for you whether or not you should have a Down-syndrome baby, and send your sons and daughters off to war on false pretenses.

And at Saddleback, after Barack Obama dodged and ducked every direct question, John McCain hit the nail on the head: radical violent Islam is evil, and he will defeat it!

Can I just say, my dear Mitt Romney, that the men who killed the founder of your religion and forced Mormons to migrate to Utah were convinced they were confronting evil. As Obama said in the aforementioned Saddleback Forum, "... it is important for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, but you know a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we are confronting evil."

And then, our dear Sarah Palin. I have not the words. The least the Republicans could have done is try not to mock us by presenting another candidate who could not pronounce "nuclear." I won't say anything about her family but let me just say we've seen the result of her abstinence-only program and her reduction of funds supporting teenage mothers.

You know, if the Democrats can't win this one, then they don't deserve to. They need to stop cowering in a corner, stop playing defense, and start presenting their own values aggressively.

Update I: Here's a shout out to the ladies of Code Pink who interrupted McCain's speech.
Update II: NY Times has an article about the Republicans running like they weren't in power.
Update III: McCain on the Republican ticket? Lipstick on a pig. I think he's a great guy, I genuinely admire him and listening to the guy's speech this evening, I was like, "I could live with him in the Oval Office." Luckily for me, I had tuned in to the speeches that came before so I know what party he's dragging along with him to the White House. By the way, the Republican Party didn't think he was such a hero in 2000, did they? Thanks, but no thanks. "Drill here, Drill now!"

Politicizing the Family

With news about Sarah Palin's teenage daughter's pregnancy breaking over the Labor Day weekend, the McCain campaign and the Obama campaign have angrily protested against any politicization of the issue. This has been demarcated as a private family matter that should not be politicized. That all sounds great and noble except that many on the right are using this incident to portray how much of a pro-lifer Sarah Palin is because her daughter is keeping the baby. With all due respect, that is using the daughter's situation to make a political point. (To be clear, I think keeping the baby is exactly the right decision).

My second point is that public policy, such as sex-education policies, are important precisely because they affect private lives.

Lastly, McCain operative and Karl Rove protege Steve Schmidt warned the media about Bristol Palin's pregnancy, "It's a private family matter. Life happens in families." Well if "life happens," shouldn't public policy accommodate "life happening" rather than trying to force life into ideological straight-jackets and make no allowance for those to whom life happens? To that point, I cite Senator Obama from his "Call to Renewal" speech.

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.

Palin: It's not about Women, It's about Conservatives

A lot of the immediate analysis has been focusing on Sarah Palin's selection as a play for the female vote, particularly, the disillusioned Hillary vote. I believe this entirely misses the point. It is about giving conservatives something to vote for rather than something to vote against. The goal is to close the enthusiasm gap and make Republicans feel that (i) they are also making history and (ii) they are voting for the future, rather than regressing by choosing a grizzly 72-year old.

To this point, it was always a fallacy to believe that everyone who voted for Hillary in the primary would vote for her in the general against a more conservative candidate. And for those voters, Obama could never have done anything to win their vote. It has always also been a fallacy to assume Hillary was the sole possessor of the key to the female vote.

Mcain-Pain

Yes, I meant to write Pain not Palin. In the first analysis, I have to say the selection of Sarah "Baracuda" Palin as the VP choice is absolutely brilliant, not because she's the best woman for the job but because she's the best candidate to negate Senator Obama's strengths and exploit his weaknesses:

1. The surprise of her announcement has completely, completely wiped the Democratic Convention off the news cycle.
2. She takes away the Democrat's monopoly on making history.
3. She doubles up on the message of being a reformer. She bucked the Alaska GOP to get elected.
4. She helps McCain appropriate Obama's sense of freshness. She even played basketball in high-school like Obama!
5. She furthers McCain's appeal to disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters.
6. She neutralizes the argument that McCain isn't one of us--her husband is a commercial fisherman and oil worker.
7. She reels in the conservative vote.
Abortion: she refused to abort her own down-syndrome baby, who was only born in April.
Gun-control: she's been hunting all her life.
8. With her 5 kids, she appeals to working mums.
9. Her eldest son is in Iraq right now, there goes the (conservative) military vote.
10. The Obama camp can't criticize her inexperience without implicitly criticizing their own candidate.
11. Joe Bidden, who is notoriously gaffe-prone, has his work cut out for him not to appear condescending or aggressive during the debates. Furthermore, the expectations for her are going to be pretty low so its going to be hard for her not to overperform.
12. She's certainly the anti-Dick Cheney.
13. Most importantly, she adds excitement to a Republican Party that had had all the appeal of a bingo party at the nursing home.

Now this is how the McCain campaign has defined her; the Obama campaign needs to get to work redefining her if they want to win.

1. Who the hell is Sarah Palin?!!!
2. She has no experience of politics on the national stage, she has never campaigned nationally or dealt with the complexities of the national media attention.
3. Even John McCain had met her only once in person before this.
4. She has no foreign policy or legislative experience.
5. Can she pass the commander-in-chief test? Hillary Clinton didn't get there in one day and Barack is still struggling to get there.
6. Is she a political "trophy-wife"? No offense Cindy, but you often look like a prop beside McCain. Is this the political equivalent?
6. Does she appear to be a pretender to Hillary Clinton's throne?
7. Does she have the gravitas to challenge John McCain when she needs to? No one doubts Biden is prepared to give Obama input.
8. Is she too right-leaning for Independents and centrists?
9. She is involved in a mini-scandal from her office's efforts to get her brother-in-law fired. Ironically, this might work in her favor.People might side with the sister rather than the brother-in-law.
10. Finally, elections are about the number 1 and not the number 2.

Having said that, I still think she's going to be tough to fight and not to be "misunderstimated."

Barack Time Capsule

Discovered on the blog "Old Man McCain" via Andrew Sullivan. A 13-year old interview of Obama on his first book--the guy has been consistent.

The Candidates at Saddleback

Sorry, I haven't posted in a while. News cycle got kinda slow. I miss the good ol' days with Hillary Clinton. McCain seems to suck the fun out of politics despite his attempts at humorous ads. There's just an underlying cynicism and viciousness that underlies his politics.

Anyway, to the issue at hand, the candidates' appearance at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church. I though Obama did quite well...if he was on Charlie Rose! McCain treated this as what it was, a political campaign appearance and a chance to pander for the Evangelical and Religio-Nationalist vote.

The only question that Obama really needed to ace, considering his audience, was the abortion question. I actually believe there are many people who want to vote for him but won't because of this. Now, you don't ace this by saying that "it's above your pay grade." What!? Just give a concise rational answer and focus on what you think is important to all people of good will--reducing the number of abortions regardless of whether you're pro-choice or pro-life. He eventually rambled towards that answer. Nuance doesn't play well in politics Obama. Compare with McCain's simplistic one line answers. Now, we all know life isn't that simple but professorial answers don't play well on the campaign trail. Just ask Al Gore and John Kerry!

Warren did a great job with the initial questions, but he needed some tougher follow up questions. McCain was getting too much time to wallow in his anecdotes and stump speech lines.

All things considered, I think this was a winner for McCain. I don't think Obama won any new support in the evangelical world, rather he reinforced the support of those like me who support him precisely because he is thoughtful and deliberative. McCain, on the other hand, probably won new support because his answers potrayed the world in black and white; how reassuring, if only life were so simple. Ultimately, this is an election for the simplifier-in-chief, so Obama needs to take off the well-worn professorial jacket. As the Mrs. noted, Hillary Clinton would probably have aced this test.

Obama in the Middle East

The Chicago Sun-Time's has a great blog by Lynn Sweet who is following the senator as he travels through the Middle East and Europe on "O-Force-One."

IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN
This aspect of the trip seems to have gone extremely well especially because of events on the ground in Afghanistan, statements by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and the 3-point shot.

ISRAEL & PALESTINE
The imagery looked great. Again, I am dismayed by the lack of even handedness in dealing with the Palestinians. Why no press statements with Prime Minister Abbas? Why again this foray into discussing final settlement issues such as the status of Jerusalem? Or a visit to any Palestinian sites, perhaps one that gives insight into Palestinian daily life.

I am losing hope that Obama is going to deal fairly with the Palestinians, which is a great shame. I think he has as great an opportunity as any US President has had to move the peace process forward.

Open Season on Black Men?

It seems that conservatives around the world have taken Obama's comments on Black Fatherhood as the green light they needed to put the blame of social failures on black men. Check out British conservative David Cameron joining the party. I hope all these people will be just as quick to join calls to provide opportunities for black men in societies that have pushed them to the margin. For those familiar with colonial history, you will recognize this as the oldest trope in the game--white men saving brown women from brown men.

Out of Touch New Yorker

As most people know by now, the New Yorker's current issue, has what I think is a remarkably idiotic front cover depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as flag-burning, Osama-supporting terrorists jabbing fists in the Oval Office. The New Yorker has decided the best way to satirize the worst and most ignorant beliefs about the Obama's is condense them into one remarkably unsucessful satirical image.

This image fails as satire because it requires you to know the intent of the creator. Successful satire would make the foolishness of these beliefs self-evident if you harbored them beforehand. This image, on the other hand, can only tap into those fears if you had them already. Furthermore, cartoons are usually depicting something ridiculous about the subjects and not something that others are saying about them. If the target was those saying the ridiculous things then those people should have been the subject of the satire. Note to the New Yorker, you could do with some lessons from John Stewart and Colbert about how to be funny.

This is exactly like a very controversial exhibition a few years ago--I don't recall the exact details--that was meant to depict the history of racism. The only problem, it presented the racist representations with no commentary and no opposing voices. With the result that unless the viewer deduced the museum's intention, it seemed the institution was promoting racist ideals. Just as that curator did an awful curatorial job, so also has the New Yorker's editor done an awful job.

What would the New Yorker's editors have said if the Weekly Standard had put that same image up? Being a liberal institution doesn't give you some sort of right to publish this rubbish. BTW, there was a similar incident a few weeks ago when an image was published on the Daily Kos depicting Michelle Obama being strung up and branded by the KKK. That was their attempt to satirize the right's attack on Mrs. Obama. I hate to say it, but this is only something a bunch of people who are not the subject of these stereotypes or attacks can think is funny.

UPDATE: One thing that I've found missing from then national conversation is the history of racist imagery in cartoons and jokes. Somehow, people seem to think somehow humor is harmless. Few mediums have been used to spread racist stereotypes than funny images. BTW, the issue is not that you can't make fun of Obama but make fun of him not of lies about him by supposedly caricaturing the lies. I think I'm more pissed by the smug liberal commentary on this issue than the cartoon itself.

UPDATE: Unfortunately, I helped reward the New Yorker for this cover by buying my copy the day it came out. Went to lunch with it today, 7/15/08, and it was a serious conversation starter. The falafel guy wondered whether I should have rewarded the New Yorker by buying it while the white lady seating next to me wanted to know if I thought it was offensive. In that sense, if it gets us talking about this issue, then it's for the good.

My Favorite Shows

Ever get sick of Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman? Here are my favorite shows that deal with politics and current affairs.

Morning Joe
I am convinced this is currently the best political show on TV. Somehow the hosts and analysts manage to leave their ideology behind long enough to see each other's points. Every important political figure in this race makes sure to stop by. Hosted by Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and Willie Geist. Regular analysts include Mike Barnicle and Pat Buchanan. Chuck Todd a.k.a. Chuckie T, NBC's political analyst often stops by as did Tim Russert before his pasing. Amazingly, many of these same people are unwatchable later in the day.

Start the Week with Andrew Marr
This BBC Radio 4 host has four or so intersting guests usually with some new book or publication about history or current affairs. Seemingly unrelated topics but often able to be constructed into an illuminating discussion.

It's All Politics
NPR's Senior Washington Editor Ron Elving and Political Editor Ken Rudin. These two have a great conversational relationship. Manage to cover the week's political news with good humor.

Left, Right and Center
KCRW's weekly political show. Would love it to be 30 minutes longer. It's one of the highlights of my Fridays.

Update 1: I see I'm not the only one who thinks Morning Joe's great, New York magazine does as well.

Abortion

Today, it was revealed that a G.O.P. group is going to be targeting Senator Obama as the Abortion President. The move is clearly directed at stopping him from making inroads into the Evangelical community. I am convinced that, as a country, we need to address the abortion issue sans politics.

Last night, I saw Lake of Fire, a documentary about abortion. The film maker claims to be undecided on the issue. For anyone who is interested in this issue and whatever one's opinion, it is a must see. Keep in mind, it is not for the faint-hearted. The movie moves from the abstracted discussion of the issue to grim pictures of aborted fetuses, a woman who died from a botched abortion using a hangar and we are witness to a couple actual abortions. A couple of scenes will stay with you for the rest of your life if you watch this film. One reveiw here from the NYT and another one here. More reviews can be accessed from Metacritic.

I am convinced, after seeing this documentary, that we need to snatch the discussion from wackos on both sides (the movie is full of them) and political operatives (no Karl Rove tactics please). This is a much to serious to be left to the crazies (the movie involves some luminaries but their discussion seemed trivially abstract when confronted with the gritty abortions in the movie). There needs to be non-political forums convened of philosophers, ethicists, religious leaders, indigenous thinkers, doctors, women who've had abortions, women who decided against abortions, people whose parent(s) reconsidered aborting them and so on.

I am afraid there is no other way to put this and I refuse to tip toe around it: Abortions are a dreadful and tragic occurrence. Whatever, our disagreements and whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, to claim otherwise would be to trivialize and minimize what is happening to both the woman and the fetus. People of good will on both sides--pro-choice and pro-life--need to have this as a starting assumption and the prevention of abortions as a goal.

Some thoughts. Please be patient and read through the whole thing if a particular point offends you. This is a complex and messy issue that requires those who engage to get their hands dirty and not ride on the high horse of abstraction or ideology. I am also engaging this issue for the first time so there are many subtleties and facts of which I am sure I am unaware.

We all agree that if a woman gives birth to a full-term baby, she has no right to kill the baby, no matter how inconvenient the child is. The survivability of premature babies is also evidence that at some point in the womb, that fetus has become a baby. (Powerful blog here on couple with a 28-week preemie; for comparison, one abortion shown in Lake of Fire was at 20 weeks according to the NYT). So, we can all agree that whatever your beliefs about when life begins, at some point, INSIDE the womb a person, an individual exists. What we disagree about is when that point is. The reality is that no one can claim to know the point at which personhood begins and the location of that point is where much of our conflict is centered (which is not to say that you can't have a belief about when personhood begins; I, for instance, believe that point is closer to conception than further from it). Despite the absence of precision about when that point is, we are all very clear on one thing--a human life is being formed.

Having established that, it is clear that unwanted pregnancies will occur and have occurred as long as human beings have existed and if the choice is between women dying from unsafe abortions and having access to safe abortions, then women's safety should be ensured. We do however have to question what is meant by choice. Does choice mean having access to as many as five abortions as was the case for one woman in the movie? How do we deal with people who are not in enough control of their lives to make good decisions? On the other hand, how is criminalizing abortion a solution to actually reducing abortions? Has making drugs illegal stopped people from using drugs? How can you force a woman to use her body to carry a baby if she doesn't want to? Are we going to be hauling traumatized 16 year old girls off to prison? Is criminalization really about reducing abortions or making a moral point.

So I return to my initial statement--people on both sides of the argument have to agree that abortions are tragic and have to reduced. It means that people on both sides have to come off their high horses and get their hands dirty. It means that some pro-choice people are going to have to encourage women to consider adoption instead of abortion; some pro-life people are going to have to make contraception available to young women; some conservative Americans are going to have to accept that adoption by a gay couple is an alternative to abortion; some pro-choice people will have to accept that a woman on her fifth abortion, for instance, is not qualified to make that choice--abortion is not a form of contraception.

I know this are not particularly intelligent suggestions but all I'm trying to say is let's regain some sanity around this issue, stop trying to make moral or political points and start working to make abortions as rare as possible while safeguarding women's control of their bodies.

By the way, after watching Lake of Fire, I am more convinced than ever that what Obama said about how to engage people of different faith than you is true especially if they believe your real goal is to force your faith on them.

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.

I don't that is too much to ask and would be much more effective. This is exactly what Nat Hentoff, an atheist who is against abortion does in the film and he is extremely convincing.

Courting the Christian Vote

Senator Obama is making a concerted appeal for the evangelical christian vote. Today, he made a proposal to expand George Bush's faith-based initiative! Trust me, the left blogosphere is not finding this initiative because of fears about separation of church and state.

Tomorrow, Wednesday, Obama will be going to Colorado Springs, the hometown of Dobson's Focus on the Family, to make a speech about National Service.

Lastly, Matthew 25 Network, a PAC unaffiliated but supportive of the Obama Campaign's Christian Outreach is running an ad in Colorado Springs touting the candidate's faith.

I think this is a very promising strategy that has a chance of winning some of the young and African-American Christians who might otherwise see the Republican party as their only choice. Think here of a Rick Warren or a T.D. Jakes. For anyone who was skeptical about his commitment to the role of faith in the public sphere as outlined in the Call to Renewal speech so viciously attacked by James Dobson, here is a policy action to back up the words. I am waiting for Tony Perkins, who wrote Personal Faith, Public Policy, to respond to this without attempting to reduce the debate to abortion.

If the argument, in courting Christians, is going to boil down to abortion and gay marriage, there's really no point, but if the discussion can be widened as Obama is trying to do, then there's a chance of winning moderate, non-conservative Christians. I sincerely believe there are many who want Obama to give them a reason to vote for him.

Listen to Matthew 25's ad below:


BTW, I noted with interest the recent re-emergence of a chain email that claimed that a movie was about to be released that potrayed Jesus and his disciples as homosexuals. It is interesting that a variation of this email also arrived in 2000. Hmmh, I wonder what else was going in 2000? A visit to snopes.com confirms that this email is a hoax.

Update I: Just saw Bishop Harry Jackson on Bill O'Reilly. I was quite disappointed that he could not find a single positive thing to say about this initiative. All he would say was that McCain needs to not ignore Evangelicals and then proceeded to reduce the discussion back to gay marriage. The CBN Report on this initiative also ended with a discussion of Obama's relationship to the gay community.

Update II: "There's a disconnect between his policy and his words." So said Tony Perkins on Anderson Cooper, even though Obama's just committed $500 million to faith-based initiatives. Ultimately for Perkins and company, the argument is back to abortion and gay marriage.

Dobson on Obama

James Dobson has come out with a ferocious and angry attack on Barack Obama with respect to a speech Obama gave almost 2 years to the day on the role of faith in public policy. I think it would be a great disservice to our democracy if either Obama's speech or Dobson's response are reduced to a few decontextualized snippets so I encourage anyone interested to read Obama's whole speech here or view the speech and Dobson's comments here.

Obama asks one simple question in this speech and gives 3 possible answers.
Question: “…how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will?”
Answer 1: Understand BOTH the role of the separation of church and state AND the “robustness of our religious practice”
Answer 2: Translate religiously motivated concerns into universal terms to facilitate dialogue.
Answer 3: “Any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion...on both sides.”

Now some of Dobson’s critiques (excerpted from Time) and some passages in Obama's speech that those critiques ignore or read thinly:
Dobson: "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology.... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
Obama: "Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life."

Dobson claims Obama, who is pro-choice, is attempting to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," and has "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution." "Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?"
Obama: "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."

Tom Minnery (also with Focus on the Family): "Many people have called [Sharpton] a black racist, and [Obama] is somehow equating [Dobson] with that and racial bigotry."
Obama: And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's?

Some thoughts:

1. It is clear from the speech that Sen. Obama is a liberal-progressive; but one who believes that faith should have a role in the public sphere. A large portion of the speech is spent chastising secularists for not recognizing American spiritual vitality.
2. I find it surprising that Dobson could not find one good thing to say about the speech even thought the general gist of the speech validates the role of faith in public discourse.
3. Why is Dobson so offended (according to Minnery) by being in the same sentence with Al Sharpton? Obama’s point was exactly that their versions of Christianity are so different that there would be a need for dialogue even if there were only Christian’s in the US. The basic point, and I encourage you to read the whole speech, is the need for religious tolerance—a basic desire for those religious minorities who had fled Europe’s religious persecution from other Christians.
4. I agree that Obama is inartful in phrasing his seeming attack on literalist interpretations of the bible. The need for believers to interpret original dictates should not be framed as the seeming unreasonableness of the original text. However, there’s a point here. Religion involves a translation of the edict into real life.
5. Sadly, there’s a possibility that the discourse of the role of faith in the public sphere is going to be reduced to (i) abortion and (ii) gay marriage—just two of the many issues that people of faith should concern themselves about and two issues that I think have been used to manipulate people of faith for far too long. I think it would be a disservice to our democracy if we cannot discuss how people of different faiths and no faith at all can dialogue in the civic space.
6. Happily, I think this is an opportunity for all people of faith to expand the discourse of faith and politics.

Image: Getty Images via NPR.
Update I: Kirbyjon Caldwell, the Methodist minister who married George W. Bush's daughter has started a website, "James Dobson doesn't speak for Me" with point by point refutations of Dobson's claims.

Playing White House

As a visual thinker, I've been the greatest fan of the Obama graphics design team. Their newest effort to design a seal for Obama doesn't work for me, not because their design skills were insufficient but because the idea of making a faux Presidential Seal just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't match the gravitas of the real seal and it almost seems presumptuous to claim the trappings of the office before earning them.

Image via CNN.

Upadate I: Happily, CNN reports the Obama Campaign have seen the foolishness of their ways and yanked this rotund faux pas.

Moveon.org's Waste of Money

Am I the only one who finds Moveon.org's anti-McCain extremely irritating? The lady comes off seeming whiny and privileged. What about something that's a little less shrill and more dignified? By the way nobody wants to send their baby to war. Who is this supposed to appeal to? West Virginians? I don't think so. It sounds like left-wing activists preaching to other left-wing activists. A waste of money if you ask me.

The Black French on Obama

The NY Times has an article on the impact of Obama's candidacy on blacks in France. French blacks are disillusioned by the official race-blind policy in midst of racial disparities. From reading it, it seems to me that its really about people starting to listen to what these people--black French intellectuals and activists--have been saying before Obama's candidacy. However, the candidacy seems to give fuel to the fire. Also, I'm not sure a return to negritude is the answer.

The article mentions French-Cameroonian writer, Léonora Miano and Patrick Lozès's advocacy group CRAN.

Obama on Black Dads

So Senator visited Apostolic Church of God in Chicago to give a "lecture" on what it means to be a Father. To be honest, I have often made the remark that the main issue that needs to be addressed in the African American community is the disrupted family structure--disrupted for many historical reasons but disrupted for sure. I have also believed that there has been a vacuum in leadership in the Afro-Am community and that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson need to address this issue aggressively. (This by the way was one of Jeremiah Wright's messages). If Sharpton and co. were doing that, then Obama wouldn't have to make this speech. To that extent, I think Senator Obama's was on point and the speech was important and necessary. I do think certain phrases were unnecessary, e.g. "any fool can have a child." True but impolitic. BTW, I am very happy that Obama didn't shy away from going to another black church. I believe these churches are doing important work and that Trinity should not be a synecdoche for the Black Church. Black churches are diverse and should be seen as that.

Anyways, the main question is how is this speech interpreted by (i) the African American community (ii) the Mainstream Media (iii) Conservatives (iv) Ethnic Whites. There has been an interesting range of responses in the blogosphere. Some will read this as an effort to appease white voters who believe that blacks are solely responsible for their uneven progress. Others, on the other end of the spectrum will see it as a much needed act of leadership.

Black commentator Ta-Nehisi Coates has just written a book, The Beautiful Struggle, about his own exceptional father so I was quite interested in finding out his take would be on this. Here's an excerpt,

Here is my beef with how this is already being reported. Barack Obama is basically touting a message that you will hear coming from any serious black person in any black community. Louis Farrakhan was saying this shit thirteen years ago, but I didn't hear anything about Louis Farrakhan offering "a strong rebuke" to absent black fathers. That's because this isn't really about black fathers, or black families. It's about Barack giving voice to white frustration. That's not a reason for Barack not to say what he's saying. He did it in front of a black crowd, and it was the right thing to say.

Here's a video of Obama's remarks.

Al Gore On Board

Speaking of Recount, Al Gore's to endorse Obama today. As Kevin Spacey's character in Recount says, "I'm not even sure I like Al Gore," but he's certainly reinvented himself as global statesman and an important voice.

Revisiting 2000

Got free HBO over the weekend and got to see Recount! I think they did an excellent job of creating a sense of suspense. Watching it, I have to say, it would have been useful to have some Clinton cut-throat politics on the Gore team during that political "street-fight." As per the film, the Democrats were completely out-hustled and I had no idea the Supreme Court played that much of a role in changing the course of events.

Excellence on the Course

Okay, this has nothing to do with politics. But it has to do with perseverance and excellence. Just watched Tiger Woods outlast Rocco Mediate and post-knee surgery pain in playoffs then sudden death for the US Open. Great golf and a little diversion from the political field. I kinda miss Senator Clinton. Hopefully, the McCain-Obama competition will be just as exciting and raise excellence in the political field.

Quote from Rocco Mediate, "I threw the Kitchen Sink at him."

Great Loss

A great loss of a giant of the political world, Tim Russert. His show, during this political season, was one of the highlights of my Sunday. A lesson to all of us to live and work passionately whatever our station in life.

Obama's Baby Mama?

Fox continues its unbelievably racist attacks on Michelle Obama. Watch the banner on the screen where she is described as "Obama's Baby Mama." I'm beginning to suspect that we are going to see some really ugly aspects of America before this is over. Source Salon.com

Terrorist Fist Jab?

So Fox decided that the fist bump between Barack and Michelle Obama before the victory speech last Tuesday, and I which I discussed in this post, could be interpreted as a "terrorist fist jab." By the way, what is with Fox and this Body Language BS.

Candidate's Folk Beliefs

For all the folklorists out there, especially those interested in the epistemic violence performed on African folk beliefs, you'd be interested to know the candidates are folk belief practitioners. See these pictures of the candidates lucky objects from Time magazine.

Concerns for November

NY Magazine has an article here about the weaknesses of the Obama candidacy from a supporter's point of view. I too had been meaning to put such a list together. I haven't read Kurt Andersen's piece through and through but one concern that I share with him is Obama's occasional cockiness. This was most evident for me when he said today he would whup Congress if they didn't pass health care reform. Said as a joke, but it doesn't quite play well to say that just as they've laid down their crowns at your feet to nominate you. Andersen writes,

True humility is a disqualifier for winning the presidency, but the appearance of humility can be essential, and Obama’s surpassing self-confidence can come across as preening self-regard.

T.D. Jakes on Obama

I don't know what Bishop Jakes stand has been during the campaign, which is actually a good thing because I believe ministers should protect their congregations from politicians but he has written what I think is a wonderful commentary on CNN.

I congratulate Sen. Obama on this historic accomplishment. I thank him for accepting the torch that was lit by our forefathers and proudly carrying it through the darkness of our struggles, trials and tribulations, bringing light and hope to a new generation, and for facing all those who said "No" and "You can't win," or "It will never happen," and firmly, proudly, defiantly saying, "Yes I can!"

I congratulate not just Sen. Obama on his victory, but the country on this landmark event that has shattered a past all too often filled with reasons to separate us as opposed to a voice of reason to unite us. The victory cup does not rest on the shoulders of the senator alone, but to all those who have been able to lift the conversation from petty racism, antiquated cut-throat politics, and fear-based campaigns to the larger issues of how we would like to see our country led into the future and ultimately how our country will be remembered.

For me it was almost déjà vu as I sat with my son. I remembered a little over 40 years ago watching the famous King speech with my dad. Similarly, I watched with my youngest son last night as a historical moment unfolded. He and I saw the dreams of slaves come true as the sons of slaves and the slave owners clapped their hands in one progressive sweep. As I drifted into sleep, all I could see was the twinkle in my son's eyes. His eyes were illuminated with possibilities, and his heart was filled with the potential of what is attainable for qualified, competent people of all types who prepare themselves intellectually and are well vested with a divine sensitivity to the "fierce urgency of now!"

Politics of the Absurd

More on this later, but how can you ask to be Vice President when you won't even acknowledge that the Presidential candidate has won? Secondly, Bob Johnson who accused the candidate of taking drugs and Lanny Davis, a disingenuous person if there ever was one, are hardly the ones to make the case. People like them are exactly why we don't need a Clinton in the White House.

Dissent with Candidate Obama

As an ardent Barack Obama supporter, let me be the first to STRIDENTLY disagree with this butt-kissing of the Israel lobby group AIPAC by Obama, Clinton and McCain. I can honestly not think of any other group before which the candidates have to go prostrate themselves and swear allegiance in such a naked manner. I truly believe that this belittles America's stature, her greatness, and her independence.

In his statements before AIPAC, Obama makes no acknowledgment of the intense sufferings of the Palestinian peoples. Speak truth to the SPECIAL INTERESTS like you said you would Mr. Obama! My thoughts on the Middle East were expressed in a post here.

Visit Open Secrets for disclosures on the group's lobbying influence.

Update I: The moment that made my heart jump during this speech was Obama's forceful statement about the final status of Jerusalem. Middle East 101, this is one of the KEY pieces of a final settlement of the crisis, meaning, you can't settle it unilaterally or away from the negotiation table. I believe this was a major foreign blunder by Senator Obama. Not even the Bush Administration has gone so far. You don't throw out major policy changes like that out to get votes!

Well, surprise surprise, Obama has had to backtrack. I hope he's not about to prove Hillary right and show he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. Glenn Kessler writes:

The Bush administration's official position is that the status of Jerusalem is among the most sensitive issues and must be decided by the parties. Former President Bill Clinton, before he left office, had proposed a formula under which "Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city," including locating the Palestian capital in East Jerusalem.

Obama quickly backtracked today in an interview with CNN.

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city. "And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

More room for Republican attacks on inexperience. Can we get Dennis Ross on the Obama team anytime soon? I'm really nervous about Obama overcompensating in his attempt to woo Jewish support.

Power Couple

Okay I missed the visuals of the speech; I was working on a paper so I had to settle for the audio. I heard there was a Barack-Michelle fist bump! I've been scouring the internet trying to find the video. This picture from Oliver Willis.

Update I: Okay, I finally caught the video on CNN. No one told me the fist-bump was followed by a pat on the future first lady's ass! That should get him the James Dobson vote.

Update II: Trust CNN's Jeanne Moos to catch unto this.

Update III: Watch the lady's of the view discuss the moment.

Heaven...

...on earth

Clinton Supporter's Outrage

Yikes! Here's an angry Clinton supporter at the recent RBC deliberation on Michigan and Florida. What to do? I guess this is the danger of identity politics. It also shows how much responsibility Hillary Clinton has to help such people gain closure by exiting the race in a dignified and conciliatory fashion and why Harold Ickes statements at the meeting were quite irresponsible. Video comes via Truthdig.

Obama as the Anti-Christ

I jokingly had a thought to myself the other day, I'm sure someone, soon enough, will make the argument that Obama is the anti-Christ. Well, not a moment too soon, a voter interviewed in the NY Times has come to just that conclusion:

A case in point came in Great Falls, Montana, where Obama took verbal whacks at John McCain, to loud applause. Afterward, you wander up to Justin Schultz, a 30-year-old fellow in a camouflage baseball cap who is standing with three friends.

What you think of Obama?

Schultz, who works maintenance at this arena, shakes his head. “I don’t think much of him at all..”

Why not? “He’s keeping something secret,” Schultz says.

Perhaps against your better judgment, you push a touch further. What do you mean?

He leans in close and, as his friends nod in unison, confides. “I think he’s the anti-Christ.”

He adds: “It’s just a gut feeling.”

No doubt.

Democratic Party Corruption

Watching the Democratic Bye-Law Committee deliberate on Michigan and Florida. I think it's ridiculous to present this circus as part of a democratic process. The committee is full of Clinton Superdelegates including Harold Ickes, the Clinton campaign's senior adviser, asking questions as though they are neutral observers. It couldn't be clearer that Hillary Clinton is the establishment. Clinton superdelegates are asking, I would say, 80% of the questions-all of them weighted in Mrs. Clinton's favor. This is corruption at its best.

Here's a list obtained from 2008 Democratic Convention.

Co-Chairs - no endorsement
Alexis Herman (co-chair, Washington , D.C. ) - Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor
James Roosevelt, Jr. (co-chair, Massachusetts ) - Bill Clinton's Assoc. Comm. of Social Security

Members - Clinton supporters (13)
Hartina Flournay (DC)
Donald Fowler (SC)
Harold Ickes, Jr. (DC)
Jaime Gonzalez, Jr. (TX)
Alice Huffman (CA)
Ben Johnson (DC)
Elaine Kamarck (MA)
Eric Kleinfeld (DC)
Mona Pasquil (CA)
Mame Reiley (VA)
Garry Shay (CA)
Elizabeth Smith (DC)
Michael Steed (MD)

Members - Obama supporters (8)
Martha Fuller Clark (NH)
Carol Khare Fowler (SC)
Janice Griffin (MD)
Thomas Hynes (IL)
Allan Katz (FL)
Sharon Stroschein (SD)
Sarah Swisher (IA)
Everett Ward (NC)

Members - no known endorsement (7)
Donna Brazille (DC)
Mark Brewer (MI)
Ralph Dawson (NY)
Yvonne Gates ( NV)
Alice Germond (DC) - DNC Secretary
David McDonald (WA)
Jerome Wiley Segovia (VA)

Update I: Donna Brazille (I paraphrase): My momma told to me to play by the rules.... and she taught me changing the rules of the game in the middle or the end of the game is called CHEATING!
Video Here:


Update II: The final results ended up netting Mrs. Clinton 24 full delegate votes. For a moment there, I thought the Dems were about to disgrace themselves.