The Culture of Politics

Two Weeks Into the Obama Administration

2009-02-03T23:29:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted anything in a while mostly because I haven't had the time but also because the truth had become self evident. It was clear leading up to the election that Barack Obama was meant to the next president. The pictures of election night and the inauguration said more than any blog posting could have said.

It's been interesting these past two weeks watching the administration try to maintain its campaign promises and mark itself as different than the Bush administration. I've been a bit concerned about the administration's and the first family's vulnerabilities during this period. It is my hope that the staff around them will do a good enough job.

Difficult days are ahead. The honeymoon is soon going to be over. The Republicans are going to discover that they are able to thrive as an opposition party and will find their voice. The president will need to be decisive and recognize the limits of bipartisanship. He's also going to have to reign in the Democratic congress when they revert to their bad habits. I continue to wish our president the best.

Andrew Young on Obama: Then and Now

2008-11-02T21:02:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-01T22:28:00.000-07:00

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

2008-11-01T07:36:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-31T20:22:00.000-07:00

Seeing Michelle and the Obama kids in the White House.
Getting my life back and ungluing myself from my TV and laptop.
Finding out who David Brooks, the NY Times intelligent conservative voted for.
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).
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.
Watching Sean Hannity explode from all the hate he has stored up inside (and admitting he has a man-crush on Obama).
Watching public celebrations around the world, especially in Africa and the African diaspora.
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

2008-09-28T08:43:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-24T22:10:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-19T18:32:00.001-07:00

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

2008-09-14T21:21:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-05T01:07:00.000-07:00

Republicans are Officially Insane ... and Democrats are Wimps

2008-09-04T17:49:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-02T09:05:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-29T23:06:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-29T14:56:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-20T16:15:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-17T15:13:00.001-07:00

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

2008-07-23T11:57:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-07-15T16:51:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-14T17:07:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-08T02:48:00.001-07:00

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

2008-07-07T19:25:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-01T15:12:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-24T18:35:00.000-07:00

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

2008-06-20T15:06:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-19T03:50:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-17T00:10:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-16T14:30:00.001-07:00

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

2008-06-16T14:18:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-16T13:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-16T13:37:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-13T15:27:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-06-11T23:38:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-06-09T18:39:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-06T10:41:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-06T01:32:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-04T19:01:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-04T12:23:00.001-07:00

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

2008-06-04T07:33:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-04T02:11:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-06-04T02:10:00.001-07:00

...on earth

Clinton Supporter's Outrage

2008-06-01T21:14:00.001-07:00

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

2008-05-31T18:36:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-31T11:15:00.000-07:00

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.

The Spectre over the Campaign: Enough Verbal Tomfoolery

2008-05-26T22:02:00.001-07:00

It's been a fear--unspoken in the public square, but much discussed in private--that Senator Obama's groundbreaking campaign puts his life in danger. It was widely discussed within the African-American community and political circles. It is thought that it was Mrs. Powell's security concerns that prevented her husband, General Powell, from running for President. Senator Obama was the earliest candidate to receive Secret Service protection for obvious reasons. By comparison, John McCain did not ask for or receive protection until he had become the presumptive nominee of his party.

Further complicating his groundbreaking status as a black candidate, Senator Obama's charismatic personality and inspirational campaign have tied him to several mythical figures in American politics--Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Robert F. Kennedy and, occasionally, Ronald Reagan. What, I wonder, do all these men have in common? Ronald Reagan was the only one of these men to survive an attempt on his life.

It is therefore unconscionable and way beyond the pale, for anyone to feign ignorance on the genuine fears around Senator Obama's security. Governor Huckabee was the first to make light of these fears by making what can only be termed an idiotic joke at, of all places, the National Rifle Association convention. He followed it with an apology and few in public impugned any ill intention on his part. Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton submitted her bizzare reference to RFK's assassination in justifying her continued presence on the campaign trail. Many, but not all, fair-minded people considered it an ill-considered choice rather than an ill-intentioned one. Mrs. Clinton, however, denied the need to apologize to Mr. Obama. Now, a Fox commentator in a bid to correct her misstatement of Obama as Osama, thought it wise to throw in a joke about the need to eliminate both men. She has followed through with an apology.

Enough of this foolishness. It is well documented that most assassinations are credited to people who are insane. These, therefore, are people who might read more into these slips of the tongue than the speaker intended. Of all the culprits, the only one who has not seen it fit to recognize the danger of her words is Hillary Clinton. She needs to acknowledge that the outrage at her comments came out of a genuine place of fear. And to everyone else out there including the Obama campaign, please stop comparing the Senator to bunch of dead men, no matter how inspirational they were.

Classless Acts: The Clintons and their Offending Tongues

2008-05-26T17:37:00.000-07:00

As you can see from this video and following her at best careless and at worst malevolent statements on the RFK Assassination last week, Hillary Clinton, her husband, and her campaign continue to show themselves as being completely without shame and devoid of any moral character. Rather than taking responsibility for the inane reference that she made to the assassination and acknowledging the valid concerns that people of all political stripes have about Senator Obama's safety, they have taken to blaming the Obama camp for the whole issue. In addition to the comments you see in the video above, Senator Clinton has written an op-ed in the New York Daily News in which she states,

I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful - particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week. And I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.

To be clear, Senator Clinton's initial statements were not offensive because she somehow reminded us of an assassination that happened 40 years ago but because she tapped into the clear and present danger of a future attempt on her competitor's life. Rather than acknowledge this, she and her advisers insist the uproar is as a result of the Obama campaign's political shenanigans. The Obama campaign, has however been very magnanimous, describing her words, simply, as "unfortunate." Obama has, himself, stated he thought that Mrs. Clinton meant no harm, although I'd love to hear Michelle Obama's take on the issue.

Michael Tomasky has an article here about Clinton's utter inability to apologize. I agree with his diagnosis if not his psychoanalysis. In my opinion, this absence of a moral compass and penchant for massaging the truth is a deep character of both Clintons and would be a tremendous liability to America in the White House.

Sexism and the Presidential Campaign

2008-05-21T19:34:00.000-07:00

Sexism has become the topic du jour on the campaign trail. I just spent an hour listening to NPR's Talk of the Nation address this topic and the Senator said the following in an interview with the Washington Post,

"It's been deeply offensive to millions of women.... I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press, and I regret that, because I think it's been really not worthy of the seriousness of the campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies we have here."

Later, when asked if she thinks this campaign has been racist, she says she does not. And she circles back to the sexism. "The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head," she said. "It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."

There is no doubt that Mrs. Clinton has endured sexist comments and treatment from some corners. I am sure that, because of ingrained attitudes in this society, she has probably faced challenges that a man would not have. Since I am not a woman, I probably cannot see many of the things that women--particularly other women her age--see and connect to aspects of their own struggles.

HOWEVER, to try to direct such frustration towards Senator Obama is particularly unreasonable. Furthermore, the nature of a groundbreaking candidacy is that you confront and disprove myths and try to overcome deeply seated prejudices. This is what Senator Obama has been trying to do. Any sexist attack she has faced has not come out of the Obama campaign so I think it is entirely unfair for her supporters to take out their frustration on him. I have seen enough of the Clinton's "strategery" to not be cynical about why this has suddenly become an issue.

Here are some of the more ridiculous complaints about sexism:
1. Obama is sexist because he pulled her chair out at one of the debates. (Remember, he was making an attempt to be courteous because he had been accused of snubbing her on the Senate floor).
2. He is being dismissive by being too nice to her now; yet, he'd better not alienate her supporters by attacking her.
3. Commentators sometimes refer to her as Mrs. Clinton and him as Senator Obama.

Come on; let's not have short memories here. Mrs. Clinton has run her campaign with a very sharp tone and has unleashed ferocious attacks on Obama, not to mention some underhanded insinuations. Much of the negativity that she receives has to do with her personality and not her gender. I truly believe that Mr. Obama has been more courteous to her than he would have been to a male competitor; after all, what black man wants to be accused of attacking an older white lady....oh wait, did I just make a sexist remark?

Make Room in the White House...

2008-05-21T05:17:00.000-07:00

... for a new dawn. It will be quite a powerful moment in America's history if this is the family in the White House. Photo Credit: Doug Mils/NY Times.

Update I: Lola Adesioye, in her Guardian column, writes of the symbolism of Obama's candidacy to young black America,

Obama has gone to some lengths to avoid being pigeon-holed as "the black candidate". However, the significance of a man who looks like them, has a message that they identify with and provides a relevant role model, is not lost on young African-Americans who have turned out to vote in record numbers this year. According to the Pew Research Centre, Obama's youth vote has been particularly high in states which have significant black populations such as Georgia, South Carolina, Missouri and Alabama.

Rebeca Walker has a column about the power of this same image for her and her son. She writes,

Watching Obama tonight reminded me of how important it is to give our children glimpses of greatness in whatever form we can, and how each moment builds on the last. During Obama's speech I thought of all things I want to make sure my son knows.

Barack Black Eagle

2008-05-20T02:36:00.000-07:00

Sen. Obama was, today, adopted into the Crow Nation. I thought this was quite touching and a meaningful gesture towards the First Americans. I certainly hope that progress will be made on the policy end of things to improve the lives of the original Americans.

Obama Book Club

2008-05-20T01:50:00.001-07:00

What's that Mr. Obama's reading as he gets off his campaign plane in Montana? It certainly looks like Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American World. Hmmh, interesting. Should the American President believe in a Post-American World? Well, I think it's healthy that he's at least taking in this perspective. It'd be interesting to find out what he makes of Zakaria's thesis. I wonder if anyone in the MSM, the other campaings, or the book publisher is going to pick up on this.

There's a review here in the NY Times, from which I excerpt the following:

This is a relentlessly intelligent book that eschews simple-minded projections from crisis to collapse. There is certainly plenty to bemoan — from the disappearing dollar to the subprime disaster, from rampant anti-Americanism to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will take years to win.Yet Zakaria’s is not another exercise in declinism. His point is not the demise of Gulliver, but the “rise of the rest.”

The real problem, Zakaria argues, is the rise of China, trailed by India. China’s is indeed the most incredible success story in history — a tale of almost 30 years of growth in the 7-to-10-percent range that seems to defy the laws of economic gravity.

“America remains the global superpower today, but it is an enfeebled one.” It has blown wads of political capital, but it is still better positioned to manage the “rise of the rest” than its rivals.... America will be in trouble only when China becomes home to tomorrow’s hungry masses yearning to be free — and to make it.

You can read the first chapter here. And in this 2007 column, Zakaria writes about Obama.

Wolf Blitzer and the Unity Ticket

2008-05-18T09:13:00.000-07:00

What's with CNN's Wolf Blitzer and having an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket? Remember he was the first one to propose this at a debate--the Los Angeles debate. Since then he keeps pushing the issue, all the while claiming this is what most Democrats want. he asked John Edwards, on today's Late Edition, if Clinton should be the VP. It's one thing to ask a well-intentioned question, it's another thing to keep repeating the same question at every available opportunity so that it becomes conventional wisdom. It seems to me that Blitzer is himself advocating the unity ticket. By the way, expect Obama to face some serious pressure to have Clinton on the ticket when he achieves the nomination.

Some Thoughts on the Middle East

2008-05-16T17:35:00.000-07:00

Disclosure: I realize this is a hot button issue for many who are emotionally invested in the Middle East. It's a topic that requires nuance, a constant balancing act, and verbal gymnastics to avoid being labeled as a supporter of terror or anti-Semitic; however, the Middle East's centrality in the political debate makes it fair game and requires some perspective.

THE US AND ISRAEL
1. Israel is an ally of the United States and we have every right to defend it with all our military might; however, Israel is not (or at least should not be) an extension of the United States. Our policies should not be conflated even if they do overlap. It seems to me that the lines, in this election have become quite blurred.
2. Support of Israel does not mean blind, uncritical support; it is important that the United States be committed to justice on behalf of the Palestinian people. The US can only continue to be a moral authority in the region if it is seen as a fair abritator. Not only can this be done without comprising Israel's security but, I believe it will eventually lead to greater security for Israel. George H. Bush, unlike his son, was much more cognizant of this.
3. I recognize that Israel is continually faced with an existential threat and that threat is one that few nations can understand--she is surrounded by adversaries; the Jewish people have been traumatized by centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe, America, and the Middle East; the Jewish people have experienced the unspeakable terror of the Holocaust; and are attacked constantly by by Hamas and Hezbollah rockets. That awareness must, however, be balanced with an awareness of the Palestinian people's incesant suffering.
4. Israel, without doubt, has the strongest Army in the Middle East and is the Middle East's only nuclear power. She has the capability to respond with overwhelming force if need be. That strength must tempered by justice.

THE US AND HAMAS
1. Hamas is a stated and unquestionable enemy of Israel; however, it is not a declared enemy of the United States--it has never directly attacked the United States or stated an intent to do so.
2. Hamas came into being as fallout from Israeli occupation and the First Intifidah. Military action might solve an immediate problem but it creates other problems.
3. Hamas came into political power in Gaza strip because of a democratic election pushed by the United States, as well as the inadequacy of Fatah as a political entity. That strengthening, in my opinion, came also due to a strategic weakening of an already flawed Yasir Arafat by Ariel Sharon. Anyone remember the methodical reduction of Arafat's headquarters to rubble?
5. It is necessary for politicians to be intellectually honest by not conflating Hamas with Al-Queda. They are not the same organization even if analogies can be made.
6. Hamas is a reality on the ground that will have to be dealt with eventually. I do, however, respect Israel's desire not to negotiate with Hamas until certain conditions are met.

THE US AND IRAN
1. Amedinajad is not the state of Iran just as Bush is not the United States. Let's stop conflating leaders and their nations. If Saddam Hussein was Iraq, then our troops would be home.
2. Iran's army is at best a second rate military. We spend (several times over) the defense budget of all the nations of the world combined. We are not negotiating from a position of fear. Iran, on the other hand, is facing a country with an army on two of its borders--Afghanistan and Iraq, a country that has declared Iran is part of an axis of evil, and that has (accidentally) shot down one of its passenger airlines killing 290 of its citizens.
3. I say all this simply to echo what Robert S. McNamara said, you must empathize with your enemy in order understand what motivates him/her.
4. This is not to, in anyway minimize the existential threat faced by Israel by a nuclear armed Iran. But lest we forget, Israel is the Middle East's only nuclear power, The United States has over 6,000 nuclear weapons and we are the only nation ever to have used nuclear weapons.

GEORGE BUSH AND THE MIDDLE EAST
1. Upon assuming power, George Bush COMPLETELY ignored the Middle East conflict. He was making an attempt to distance himself from Bill Clinton's foreign policy.
2. George Bush suggested, on the eve of invading Iraq, that somehow that invasion was going to magically bring peace to the Middle East. A delusion if there ever was one.
3. The destabilization of Iraq has significantly strengthened Iran in the Middle East and thrown the region off-balance.
4. The war in Iraq has severely reduced our effectiveness in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden is likely to outlast Bush's term in office.

Now the question is "what is the best way to bring peace to the Middle East?" The first is by being intellectually honest with ourselves. The second is by being fair yet firm in securing peace for all. Justice looks the same regardless of what side of the fence one is born on; all human life is, after all, valuable.

Update I: Senator Obama had a useful interview here with Jeffrey Goldberg about his stand on the State of Israel. Here are some excerpts.

I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience.
That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it’s a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.

I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now, and that won’t lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article.

Update II: Thomas Friedman about the US's role in the Middle East has a useful article here from which I quote the following:

Personally, as an American Jew, I don’t vote for president on the basis of who will be the strongest supporter of Israel. I vote for who will make America strongest. It’s not only because this is my country, first and always, but because the single greatest source of support and protection for Israel is an America that is financially and militarily strong, and globally respected. Nothing would imperil Israel more than an enfeebled, isolated America.
But what matters a lot more is that under Mr. Bush, America today is neither feared nor respected nor liked in the Middle East, and that his lack of an energy policy for seven years has left Israel’s enemies and America’s enemies — the petro-dictators and the terrorists they support — stronger than ever. The rise of Iran as a threat to Israel today is directly related to Mr. Bush’s failure to succeed in Iraq and to develop alternatives to oil.

Update III: Jeffrey Goldberg has a useful op-ed in the Sunday NY Times based on the above mentioned interview. Here's an excerpt.

There are some Jews who would be made anxious by Mr. Obama even if he changed his first name to Baruch and had his bar mitzvah on Masada. But after speaking with him it struck me that, by the standards of rhetorical correctness maintained by such groups as the Conference of Presidents and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, Mr. Obama is actually more pro-Israel than either Ehud Olmert or Ehud Barak. (To say nothing of John McCain and President George W. Bush, who spoke to the Knesset last week about external threats to Israel’s safety but made no mention of the country’s missteps.)
This is an existentially unhealthy state of affairs. I am not wishing that the next president be hostile to Israel, God forbid. But what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within.

Update IV: For some thoughts on dealing with Hamas, see Joe Klein's Time column here.

Full-Blooded American

2008-05-13T20:05:00.001-07:00

Obama Loses West Virginia. Such shocking news. Of course this was to be expected. This Financial Times article gives some interesting perspective on SOME West Virginian's beliefs about Senator Obama. I think this one is absolutely the cream of the crop.

Josh Fry, a 24-year-old ambulance driver from Williamson, insisted he was not racist but said he would feel more comfortable with Mr McCain, the 71-year-old Vietnam war hero, in the White House. “I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president.”

Such people seem almost impossible to reach. ABC news had a lady who insisted Obama was a Muslim; the reporter insisted that the Senator had announced he was a Christian, but the old lady said she didn't believe him. How does one deal with people with this.

Despite all this, I wish Obama had campaigned much harder in West Virginia, although I realize he would still have lost and the idea that he campaigned and lost would have been used against him. Still, I think it looks bad to appear to dismiss the state.

Update: Kathleen Parker, in her RCP column amazingly tries to justify the racist statement above as being about values not race even though nothing has been used to describe racial purity so much as "blood."

Update II: Talking Point Memo has an analysis that says Obama's problem is not a Blue Collar Problem but an Appalachian one. Check it out.

Smear Campaign Redux

2008-05-12T19:16:00.000-07:00

Today's NY Times opinion page features a column by commentator Edward Luttwak on how the muslim world is going to lose their affection for Obama once they find out he is a Christian. Have no doubt, the main point of the article is not what it claims to be. The real reason for the article is to imply that no matter what he says, Obama is a muslim because his father was a muslim. The key paragraph is this one,

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

Luttwak makes some flimsy argument about Obama being an apostate under Islamic law for whom execution is the Islamic punishment. Again, the only reason is to get the idea out in the American psyche that Obama is a muslim. Luttwak is an advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which as far as I can tell is non-partisan.

Since when did we select our presidents based on what the standards were in other countries. If that were the case, we wouldn't have had Madeleine Albright or Condoleeza Rice as our Secretaries of State because they would have to represent us in muslim countries like Saudi Arabia where women don't have the same rights. This is a continued attempt to portray Obama as different than "us," as "other."

Update: This is now the second most emailed article on the NYT. I believe the NYT really should have been more critical about the intent of this column.

Update II: Others are also recognizing that this is another round in the smear campaign. Here's one take from the Huff Post. And another from fellow blogger, The Stopped Clock.

Slicing and Dicing

2008-05-09T20:41:00.000-07:00

Donna Brazil and Paul Begala got into it recently on CNN. This debate is really quite interesting because Brazile and Bagela are really two of the more likable and sensible pundits on the air. As Brazile correctly articulates, dismissing one person's coalition and emphasizing another's is implying superiority of one over the other. As I stated in my earlier post, why hasn't Hillary won (or really worked hard to win) the black vote. Hillary followed up this tense debate by making her, by now, widely circulated comment about her white support.

I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Peggy Noonan, in her Wall Street Journal column, was one of the many commentators to denounce these words and Begala's comments. I think the Clinton camp really needs to stop this nonsense. Her supporter, Carole Simpson, on today's Larry King Live, blatantly said whites would not vote for Obama in November, arguing, in effect, that America is too racist to vote for a black candidate. To his credit, Clinton supporter Lenny Davis disagreed. And what does Paul Krugman do in his latest column? He chastises the Obama camp and Donna Brazile for her comments in the video above while blaming Obama for not winning over whites. This column is so willfully blind of Mrs. Clinton's damaging actions that I have to respond to its inanity. He writes,

There’s just one thing that should give Democrats pause — but it’s a big one: the fight for the nomination has divided the party along class and race lines in a way that I believe is unprecedented, at least in modern times.

Ironically, much of Mr. Obama’s initial appeal was the hope that he could transcend these divisions. At first, voting patterns seemed consistent with this hope. In February, for example, he received the support of half of Virginia’s white voters as well as that of a huge majority of African-Americans.

But this week, Mr. Obama, while continuing to win huge African-American majorities, lost North Carolina whites by 23 points, Indiana whites by 22 points. Mr. Obama’s white support continues to be concentrated among the highly educated; there was little in Tuesday’s results to suggest that his problems with working-class whites have significantly diminished.

Okay, Krugman. Do you suppose your candidate might have had anything to do with that? Do you think you should perhaps also mention that your candidate started out with 40% support in the African American community? He continues,

So what can be done to heal the party’s current divisions?

More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer — they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal.

Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance.

After the Pennsylvania primary, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, airily dismissed concerns about working-class whites, saying that they have “gone to the Republican nominee for many elections.” On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that “we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.” That sort of thing has to stop.

Yes, and so do your candidate's attempts to encourage those racial divisions by suggesting that she alone can win the white vote. The blatant decontextualizing of Brazile's comments, which you can view above, has made me lose any respect I might have had for Krugman. As you can see from the video, Brazile is arguing, exactly against the division of the electorate into racial categories and saying one was more important than the other! The sooner Mrs. Clinton steps off the stage, the sooner will be able to bridge those racial gaps.

Sean Hannity's Bitter Obsession

2008-05-07T00:35:00.001-07:00

Just catching up with the TV coverage of the IN and NC elections. I've been watching Fox for the past 30 minutes. Sean Hannity seems to have been thrown off balance by Obama's NC victory and the close contest in Indiana. Literally, every sentence out of the mouth of Sean Hannity and the others is about Rev. Wright. I really hope that the American people show themselves to be above this sort of meaningless and thoughtless politics.

Invisible (Wo)Men

2008-05-06T22:15:00.000-07:00

Well, with the victory in North Carolina and the magnificent showing of Gary, Indiana's black electorate, it is clear that the black vote cannot be ignored. No one has asked Senator Clinton why she hasn't won much of the black vote or challenged her to try to earn it as they did Obama for the working class white vote. Is she supposed to win the general without the black vote? There is not a single argument that's been made about the importance of the white working class vote that can't be made for the black working class vote. Furthermore, in much of the dissecting of the electorate that has been happening, no one has asked what African-American voters want beyond having a dark-skinned president.

Update: See this Houston Chronicle article about how Obama isn't winning some "key voting blocks," which reinforces my thesis. She's losing the Afro-Am vote by 9 to 1. If you're going to take Obama to task then take her to task as well.

Update II: Another interesting take from the Guardian.

Obama in the Niger Delta

2008-05-06T07:49:00.000-07:00

Politico.com's Ben Smith, quoting Reuters, is reporting that Obama has inadvertently sued for peace in the Niger Delta. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) announced they were considering a call for ceasefire by the Senator because "Obama is someone we respect and hold in high esteem." The only problem, the Senator had not said anything! He did, however, take the opportunity to make a call for reconciliation.

Senator Obama does urge an end to the violence in the Delta region and encourages all parties to establish a process for addressing the relevant issues and grievances in order to create the conditions for peace and economic development.

Well it just shows, that taking a posture of reasonableness can indicate to the rest of the world that America is open for conversation. Something that won't be achieved by Senator McCain singing "bomb, bomb, Iran" or Hillary Clinton threatening to "obliterate Iran." It also show the unrealistic expectations for Obama. Everyone is (or was until recently) projecting their dreams on him. For the complete Reuters story click here.

The Fallacy of Polls

2008-05-05T01:56:00.000-07:00

Two polls being are out today reporting almost contradictory things about the effect of the J.Wright controverse. The first by USA today proclaims that "Flap over pastor hurts Obama." They report:

Barack Obama's national standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, raising questions for some voters about the Illinois senator's values, credibility and electability.

Another report coming from the NY Times reports "In Poll, Obama Survives Furor." They continue:

A majority of American voters say that the furor over the relationship between Senator Barack Obama and his former pastor has not affected their opinion of Mr. Obama, but a substantial number say that it could influence voters this fall should he be the Democratic presidential nominee.

I'd advise any candidate to take all polls with a pinch of salt. I don't understand how polling a thousand or so people is supposed to give an accurate read of a couple of hundred million.

A Thousand Words

2008-05-01T12:18:00.000-07:00

It's amazing how images can be used to reinforce a subliminal (or explicit) message. This is three-part image of Jeremiah Wright from this NY Times story. I wonder what message is been sent here.

BTW Wright's Press Club spectacle and Obama's denouncement seem to have (i) given people permission to dismiss any valid thing Wright had to say (ii)allowed extremists on the right to ridicule any expression of grievance by the African-American community. You only need to spend an hour on conservative talk radio to find this out. In that sense, JW was completely lacking in perspective on the opportunity inherent in this historic moment to better weave the African American experience into the national narrative.

He also had no idea how many people were working to defend his legacy and how he made a fool of us and his parishioner for having extended him the respect due an elder.

The Obamas on Today show

2008-05-01T07:59:00.001-07:00

The Wright Moment part 4

2008-04-30T08:01:00.000-07:00

Returning to the real world from the metaphysical. My wife is convinced Wright is too smart not to know what he was doing. She believes he acted the fool to force Obama to distance himself and make a clean break in an act of self-sacrifice. Hmmh this is as compelling a theory as any. It hasn't become widespread but Blake Fleetwood at the Huffington Post has come to the same conclusion.

The Wright Moment Part 3

2008-04-30T07:07:00.000-07:00

So what just happened? I've been scratching my head on why Jeremiah Wright did what he did. I mentioned, in an earlier posting that I had found a useful philosophical analogue in the trickster figure-Esu from Yoruba mythology (footnote: distinct from Esu of Yoruba Christianity). He mischievously sows confusion and throws everyone off balance so that they have to scramble to regain their footing. When balance is restored, (if it is restored) it's a difference balance--one that is often more grounded and complete than the previous balance. He takes you to truth in the path you least expect or desire.

How does this apply to the Obama campaign? There had been an initial equilibrium where it was smooth sailing and everyone was singing Kumbaya. This balance was however an illusion. Racial tensions were under the surface, the candidate had not been tested and so on. Who emerges but Jeremiah Wright via his video recordings. Balance disrupted. The candidate tries to right himself but has to acknowledge many of those things that hadn't been acknwoledged. Balance starts to be restored, but everyone acknowledges the issue was not gone and would eventually re-emerge. Esu appears again, in the guise of Wright, inexplicable and uncontrollable. Disrupts everything. The candidate has to recalibrate again and address the issue by throwing Wright off the bus. Finally, balance is restored to his campaign. Esu's job? Sow chaos in order to achieve equilibrium.

Update: From further reflection, research, and discussion with greater minds, I understand that Esu's role was not to restore balance, but to disrupt stasis by sowing confusion. It was left to his victims to restore to regain equilibrium. Still it's a useful philosophical framework for dealing with the unpredictable and undesirable interruptions of equilibrum.

The Wright Moment part 2

2008-04-28T18:54:00.001-07:00

Okay; I'm still trying to absorb the implication of Rev. Wright's appearances. These are my thoughts right now; they are raw, unprocessed and might change in the next few days.

"It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Abraham Lincoln via Rev. Wright (Paraphrase of Proverbs 17:28)

Here's what I think Senator Obama needs to do. Offload Rev. Wright. I don't think anyone can blame him at this point. The presidency has become more important than this relationship. He needs to simply say,

Rev. Wright is no longer my pastor, I will continue my relationship with the church because it is my church family. Rev. Wright has become a distraction to the task hand which is determining the future of the United States. We need to focus on the needs of the American.

Note to Rev. Wright. There is such a thing as ogbon agba--the wisdom of the elder. It is time to behave like an elder. The Yoruba say eyin l'oro. Words are like an egg--you cannot take them back. It is not about you and it is necessary to stand back for the larger goal. This is the message Tavis Smiley received a few weeks ago. All your life, you've been fighting for the progress of the African-American. This is the moment; it is a kairos moment. You've done your part. There is a season for everything. It's not about you. Yes, you should defend yourself, but recognize your audience. Bill Moyers was appropriate; the National Press Club was foolish. I know the last few months have been painful but your legacy would have been redeemed in time if you knew how to, in the words of Congressman Clyburn, chiiill.

The Wright Moment

2008-04-28T12:07:00.000-07:00

It's been a distracting few days as Rev. Wright has gone on his publicity campaign. For those of us who are emotionally invested in the candidacy of Senator Obama, it's also been unsettling. How will the media treat his statements? What clips will be excerpted and replayed?

I think the information is still being digested by the media; they're still in shock by the strategy of defense by offense. I suspect many are still trying to figure out how to absorb and regurgitate all this. I myself have been severely distracted from my own work--this most be how Senator Obama feels, trying to get the job done but there is this other character that's re-ordering the political space you occupy. Hmmh, I wonder if Jeremiah Wright is our modern trickster figure--the Ashanti Ananse, Yoruba Esu, or Native American Coyote--destabilizing in order to (ultimately) create balance. Anyway, as things settle down, I'll catch up on this topic. One thing I suspect is that the reception of these appearances is going to be like the O.J. Verdict--blacks will hear one thing, whites another.

Ed Rendell and Louis Farrakhan

2008-04-26T10:01:00.000-07:00

Okay, the Obama camp needs to start learning how to play hardball. They need to get a crack research team out there to dig up stuff. It's not playing dirty, it's playing politics. Here is Ed Rendell, Hillary's number one supporter in Pennsylvania singing praises of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Are you kidding me? And Hillary attacks Obama because Obama's Pastor has a relationship with Farrakhan?

Link comes from Colbert King's Washington Post column.

Hannity versus Moyers

2008-04-24T18:07:00.000-07:00

I'm watching Sean Hannity (of Fox's Hannity and Cones) right now responding to Rev. Wright's appearance on Bill Moyer (which will air this Friday--April 25). It's amazing to see how much vitriol and anger Hannity is expressing at the possibility of Wright countering the negative image that's been constructed by the media. He calls it "a rehab tour" where we have "a very calm image and a very different image" and claims this "looks like an image-making campaign to [him]." Really? So Rev. Wright should not make any attempt to fix his image if he believes he's being unjustly demonized?

BTW, one of the commentators on the show, Mike Allen of Politico.com, describes Wright as dressing in a dignified manner (Wright was wearing a suit in the interview). Dignified, as opposed to what? So the African-inspired clothes he typically wore in church were undignified? As people speak, the fear that Obama is "not one of us" that is at the root of the Wright scandal bubbles to the surface.

As soon as Allen started to say some positive things about Wright's appearance and his descriptions of the church's "lived ministries" and faith-based initiatives, Hannity was sure to cut him off, remind the audience about the GD America comments, and turn to his other guest, Andrei Cherney, to ask for a condemnation of Obama. The other commentator starts to say that he does not think Obama is being dishonest since he has disowned all the controversial comments. Hannity cuts him off, saying should have known Obama at the time that Wright was controversial. Finally Cones, the supposed foil to Hannity, emerges from his slumber to weakly defend Obama. I still don't understand why Fox continues to have Cones on the show. I don't think anyone with half an eye open thinks that Cones is anything more than a prop on the Sean Hannity Show.

The Elephant in the Room

2008-04-23T20:34:00.000-07:00

Hmmh. Someone is finally broaching the subtext to why Mr. Obama can't seem to get the blue collar vote in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Adam Nagourney writes about the role race MIGHT be playing here. Admittedly, Rev. Wright videos and the San Fran comments didn't help. It's worth noting that the African American voting block has faithfully supported the white presidential candidates of the party. And if they do decide to sit out or vote against a Clinton nominee it would not be opposing her because of her difference but because of a perceived overthrow of a black candidate who has played by all the rules. And even now, according to Nagourney's article, they are more willing to support Mrs. Clinton than whites are to support Obama. Jon Stewart best sums up the subtext to all this when asked Obama, "Will you pull a bait and switch sir, and enslave the white race?"

Get the Math Right

2008-04-23T13:15:00.000-07:00

All through this morning, the media has been reporting Obama's loss as 10 points; as Andrew Sullivan pointed out and as Michael Crowley notes, the Hillary won by 9.2 points; unless, I was paying less attention in my arithmetic class than I thought, that rounds up to 9 points not 10! See official Pennsylvania returns here.

Picturing Hillary

2008-04-23T04:24:00.000-07:00

I believe its necessary to call the media to task on the pictures being selected to represent Senator Clinton. They are, in my opinion, consistently chosen to portray her in an unattractive light; admittedly, she is not the most photogenic of candididates, but still. This one here is from the Guardian

Why Hillary Clinton is a PC

2008-04-23T00:28:00.000-07:00

There was some analysis in the press a while back about Obama as a Mac and Hillary as a PC. New evidence: Hillary has decided her new catch phrase is "Yes, We Will." Sound familiar anyone? Taking your competitor's "Yes, We Can" and somehow making it more drab and pedestrian and then presenting it as a fresh innovation. How Microsoft.

Update: Yikes! Salon, reports that her supporters we're actually yelling "Yes We Can" then modified that to "Yes She Can."

Notes to an Aspiring Politician

2008-04-21T09:00:00.000-07:00

Don't overestimate the intelligence of the voter (my man, DC, gets the credit for this one).
When in doubt, keep it simple, repeat often.
If you are unable to control your urge to give long nuanced explanations; precede them with a short concise refutation, apology, or admission.
Everything you say can be used against you [in the court of public opinion].
Do not try to explain your voters to themselves.
Don't try to explain one group of voters to another group of voters, especially when the door is closed!
There is no such thing as new politics; there is only politics.
The truth of polls is not in the numbers.
There is no truth, there's only spin.
Negative campaigning works [against you], whether, you like it or not.
There is no such thing as an undecided voter, just those who won't reveal their decision.
There is no such thing as a compassionate conservative; there is no such thing as a unifying liberal.
Offense is a whole lot more effective than defense.
Don't play by the rules, make the rules.
Don't wait for the media to come to reason, tell them what to think!

p.s. I'll be updating and expounding these as they come to me.

Obama as Bargainer, Michelle as Challenger.

2008-04-20T18:28:00.000-07:00

My two favorite discussants, John McWhorter and Glenn Loury, discuss Michelle Obama and other concerns here. They pick up on Shelby Steele's thesis as outlined in his book, "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win." Blogging Heads Link comes via NY Times. Steele outlines his thesis in this interview with Bill Moyers.

My New Hero

2008-04-19T00:51:00.000-07:00

This is Father Michael Pfleger, the Catholic Priest who invited Rev. Jeremiah Wright to an give the benediction at an event in honor of Maya Angelou. Fox Reporters here try to ambush him about that invitation. If only more people could be as articulate as he is in rebutting Fox's spurious claims. I'll just let him speak for himself.

Source: Daily Kos

Edwards for VP?

2008-04-18T10:37:00.000-07:00

Senator John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth, have so far denied the likelihood of his joining any ticket as VP. I do, however, think he would be a good option for either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton if they decide not to select each other. He would provide some credibility with the much prized male white voter as is implied in this appearance on the Colbert Report.

Furthermore, he is more likely to be able to control his ego in a way that will allow him to work with the Presidential Candidate. I know it didn't work out too well with John Kerry but that's probably because they didn't like each other very much.

Obama on Bitter Small Town Americans

2008-04-13T17:53:00.000-07:00

It's quite difficult to defend Obama's latest comments in San Francisco regarding bitter small town voters. There's no way around the condescension that can be read into the remarks. No doubt all you're going to hear in the media now is "cling to guns and religion," but here is a more complete citation:

“[T]he truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Ironically, I think he was trying to explain that they are NOT racist for not supporting him. Personally, I think there are limits to which a presidential candidate should be trying to psychoanalyze one set of people or trying to explain their actions to another group of people. However, TPM has a 2004 clip of Obama's comments on Charlie Rose that, perhaps, explain those words a little better. Note to the candidates: This is the age of the 30 second clip. Stay on message even if you're singing in the shower.

Powell on Obama, Jeremiah Wright

2008-04-10T08:54:00.001-07:00

Global Politics: A Lesson in Leadership

2008-04-09T02:09:00.000-07:00

Stepping out of the local political scene onto the global one for a minute (perhaps one can now say, in the inverse of the familiar dictum, that "all politics is global"). I have been thoroughly disappointed in Thabo Mbeki's lack of leadership in not putting pressure on Robert Mugabe to be fair in his dealings with the people of Zimbabwe rather trying to take the presidency to the grave with him and throwing his country into chaos in the process. I am delighted that the ANC's chairman, Jacob Zuma, has called on the Zimbabwean authorities to release the election results. Too many African leaders are hedging their bets for the day they'll have to pull a 'Mugabe'. Kudos to Mr. Zuma. It is now time for our presidential candidates in the US to show some global leadership, not by demonizing Mugabe as the western powers are wont to do, but by appealing to the better angels of the Zimbabwean ruling class. Obama where are you? See my posts on the issue on my other blog, African Currents.

Oprah Suffers for Obama?

2008-04-08T13:41:00.000-07:00

Politico.com makes an interesting observation about Oprah's ratings and popularity since she endorsed Obama. They've fallen! Is it that her audience wants her to transcend race (which would mean they think she's supporting Obama 'cause he's black) or they just want her to transcend politics. The first would be a sad commentary.

Agents of Misinformation

2008-04-04T17:03:00.000-07:00

In watching more cable news in the past few weeks than I have in a long time, I've been amazed at how much the delivery of news has turned into the delivery of opinions. Even CNN's Headline News, which, in the good old days, just delivered the headlines has turned into a pulpit for Glenn Beck and others. The greatest agent of misinformation on CNN has to be Lou Dobbs with his xenophobic and misleading reporting on immigration and the economy. I have never encountered someone speak with so much authority and yet (appear to) be so ignorant. It's certainly revived his career.

Tonight the Lou Dobbs question of the night, "How angry are you that the government will grant 65,000 H1-B Visa's while 80,000 Americans have lost their jobs." This is a retarded question in so many ways. It does nothing to explain the process built into the H1-B system where every job has to be advertised for an American; it doesn't explain the invaluable contributions that those H1-B workers make, or the taxes they pay. On the most basic level, it doesn't even address the fact that the jobs lost and the jobs gained are not equivalent!

Let's just call this mindless journalism the O'Reilly effect. The more, I watch, the more I realize the whole thing is a scam.

Candidates on King's Assassination Anniversary

2008-04-04T12:46:00.000-07:00

All the candidates gave speeches today marking MLK's assasination. I had all three videos on here but it takes a while to load them all, so here's Senator Obama's speech. I think John McCain did a very brave thing today by going to Memphis to acknowledge his mistake in voting against MLK's Birthday Holiday. I have no doubt, though,that if MLK was around today and spoke truth to power, many would not embrace him as they do today.

Global Election

2008-04-03T15:00:00.000-07:00

Former President Jimmy Carter made comments to reporters in my home country, Nigeria, that are being construed as an endorsement of Barack Obama. See NY Times entry that cites Nigerian daily, This Day, and another posting from the Jerusalem Post.

There is little doubt in my mind that Africans on the content and in the diaspora will erupt in celebration if Senator Obama wins this thing. By the way, President Carter should have asked Samantha Powers if he had any allusions his comments would not be reported globally.

Moment of Encounter: A Great Prophet

2008-04-02T23:49:00.000-07:00

NPR will have a feature this Thursday on MLK's Prophetic last speech on the 40th anniversary of his assassination. Here's a video excerpt of that speech. For any student of religion, there is the recognition of the lasting residue of a moment of encounter with the divine; for what else is prophecy but the prophet emanating and transmitting the force of his or her divine encounter to the community of believers.

The New Punditocracy

2008-04-01T23:02:00.000-07:00

An interesting article on the changing demographics of the punditocracy visible on the cable news networks. I had myself noticed the number of newly regular African-American faces on TV. Some notable faces include Jamal Simmons, Amy Holmes, Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Joe Watkins. The NY Times writes, "While a few are unknown to general audiences, they all come with extensive résumés that mostly include backgrounds in journalism, politics, academe, nonprofit organizations or business." Juan Williams and Donna Brazile are, of course, long established political commentators and actors. I do hope the new faces continue to be visible long after this race.

Image Source: (Amy Holmes) www.projectway.com by way of politico.com; (Donna Brazile) wikipedia.

Mature Journalism?

2008-03-31T22:58:00.000-07:00

Internet media outlets are finally starting to do some of the contextualization of Wright's comments that this blog has been trying to do over the past few weeks.

Truthdig has a feature here playing more complete excerpts of some of the controversial sermons and Guardian columnist Michael Tomasky describes the contents of Wright's published books here.

It is perhaps too much to ask for Fox News to do the same, but I would hope that ABC and other mainstream media that jumped on the Wright-bashing bandwagon treat their audience like adults and allow them to come to their conclusions based on complete and accurate information.

Black Liberation Theology in the Media (part deux)

2008-03-31T21:57:00.000-07:00

Fresh Air's Terry Gross had theologians James H. Cone and Dwight Hopkins on today's show. It's a good way to contextualize Jeremiah Wright's seemingly incendiary comments for those who are interested. For even more context, see my previous post, "Black Liberation Theology in the Media."

What Now? Incredulity in Victory

2008-03-30T23:14:00.000-07:00

Spoiler Alert: If you haven't seen the 1972 film, The Candidate and don't want to know the end, skip this post.

I recently saw The Candidate featuring Robert Redford as the fresh face running against the entrenched Republican Senator for his California seat. I'm pretty sure I heard or read somewhere recently that this movie mirrors the current Presidential race, especially if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee running against McCain. Anyway, the film ends with the Robert Redford character on victory night asking his campaign manager, "what now?"

I believe that whoever the victor is, he or she will be asking that very question. Perhaps that's what Hillary Clinton alludes to when she says "Ready on Day One." The promises that have been made on the campaign trail will have to be kept. Will it really be possible unify a divided congress (and nation)? Will it really be possible to withdraw troops from Iraq without throwing the middle east into chaos? Will it really be possible to provide universal healthcare? In the final analysis, it will be left to those who have supported their candidate passionately to hold that candidate to account with the same level of passion. We should all be, as Cornel West puts it, "critical supporters."

Desegregating America's most Segregated Hour

2008-03-28T23:44:00.000-07:00

An interesting discussion here on the opportunity presented by the Wright Controversy. The discussants are Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. of Hope Christian Church in Maryland and High Impact Leadership; The Very Rev. Tracey Lind of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Cleveland, Ohio; Melissa Harris-Lacewell of Princeton University; and Michael Cromartie, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center

Needless to say and as others have observed in the past few weeks, the intersection of race, religion, and politics is particularly volatile so I commend the participants for their sober discussion.

Bishop Jackson recently wrote a column critical of Senator Obama with which I disagree on several accounts (e.g. "Some may even have seen his relationship with Dr. Wright as a kind of spiritual adultery---just as dangerous to the nation’s health as Governor Spitzer’s or Governor McGreevy’s sins") but it's worth taking in his perspective.

By way of a plug, one of the things that I admire my current church for is the diversity of ethnicities. Although, having attended predominantly black and predominantly white churches in the past, I recognize that, as Durkheim observed, "religion is an eminently social thing" and in that sense reflects the society within which it functions.

"Take a Little Time to Enjoy Your View"

2008-03-28T22:59:00.000-07:00

So, on Friday, Mr. Obama was on my wife's favorite show, The View, and the NY Times notes that judging from the hostesses response, he should have no problem bridging the gender divide. They grilled him though, not least of all Elizabeth Hasselback. Now, we'll just have to see what he can do with Fox and Friends.

Talking Money with Maria Bartiromo

2008-03-27T20:21:00.001-07:00

Following his speech at NY's Cooper Union (see below), Barack Obama appeared with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo to discuss the economy. You can see it in 2 parts here and here, as well as a Republican response.

Senators Clinton and McCain have also given speeches on the economy in recent days.

Obama at Cooper Union

2008-03-27T20:14:00.001-07:00

Senator Obama gave a talk today at Cooper Union, where Abraham Lincoln on February 27, 1860 gave his first political speech in New York. He was introduced by Mayor Bloomberg who, some have suggested, could be the Cheney to Obama's Bush.

Theologians for Wright

2008-03-27T10:26:00.000-07:00

I just learned on MSNBC that two well respected theologians have come to Jeremiah Wright's defense. Peter Gomes, the minister at Harvard's Memorial Church and Harvard Professor wrote an article called "The Pastor as Prophet" and Martin E. Marty, professor emeritus at University of Chicago's Divinity School wrote an article called "Prophet and Pastor."

A quote for Gomes, "Presidential candidates run for office in order to run ‘America the Beautiful,’ forgetting that Katharine Lee Bates in her fourth verse asks God to “mend thine ev’ry flaw/Confirm thy soul in self-control/Thy liberty in law.” She was a brave woman to suggest that in the American ideal, to which her poem was in elegant dedication, there were flaws to be mended; and although ‘America the Beautiful’ did not make the cut as our country’s National Anthem, it should have."

And from Marty, "Having [criticized some of Wright's stands], and reserving the right to offer more criticisms, I've been too impressed by the way Wright preaches the Christian Gospel to break with him. Those who were part of his ministry for years — school superintendents, nurses, legislators, teachers, laborers, the unemployed, the previously shunned and shamed, the anxious — are not going to turn their backs on their pastor and prophet."

It's interesting to note that the pastor of Bill and Hillary Clinton's former church in Washington DC has come to Wright's defense. (Note: it's a PDF). He writes, "To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice do Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage and violence."

How He Got Here

2008-03-27T00:56:00.000-07:00

I was just watching, online, Senator Obama's interview in 2006 on Charlie Rose. The appearance was before he started running for president--although the book tour always serves as a test-run in American politics. For anyone who hasn't read "Audacity of Hope," this interview is a good way to get a sense of what he's about politically. He describes himself as a bridge builder and talks, presciently, about his faith and his church. See for yourself.

Inadvertent Endorsement?

2008-03-26T17:20:00.000-07:00

In a taste of what's to come in the fall, the John McCain campaign is using Bill Clinton's statement to Barbara Walters on their website. Interesting in light of new polls reported on CNN.

Stating the Obvious

2008-03-25T14:04:00.000-07:00

Warning: The following post might not be "fair and balanced."

Senator Clinton declares to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that Rev. Wright would not have been her pastor. (That's news).

Only her husband's in his moment of crisis.

Here's a transcription of her comments with my comments unfairly inserted.

Question:
How would you have responded if your pastor had said some of the things that Rev. Wright said [such as "in Bill Clinton, blacks had an intelligent friend in the White House"]?

Response:
“He would not have been my pastor. … You know, you don’t choose your family [especially not your spouse], but you choose what church you want to attend. I spoke out against Don Imus [and everyone who ever went on his show because they should have known all he did was spit hate; especially by claiming I was Satan]. I gave a speech at Rutgers University saying that hate speech [such as claiming in that unfriendly tone of Rev. Wright's that racism exists] was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that. So for me, if I had been a member of such a [predominantly black] church [in the south side of Chicago] – first of all, if I had sat there for 20 years, I think you all would have a lot to say if somebody made comparable sorts of sermons [about the government's historical oppression of white people]. I just think you have to speak out against that [because denouncing and rejecting them on a nationally televised speech, on interviews with all the major tv stations, and in a blog column in the Huffington post is not enough]. You certainly have to do it, if not explicitly [after buying old DVDs of your pastors sermon and sifting through them relentlessly for politically damaging comments], implicitly by getting up and moving [because my spouse hasn't always been faithful, but I didn't choose him]."

Connecting the Dots: Full Journalism

2008-03-24T02:08:00.000-07:00

In this New Republic article entitled "Full Faith," E.J. Dionne expresses surprise at the sophistication of Obamas articulation of his faith. Specifically, he writes,

"As I paused to marvel at how this remark could have been plucked from one of Niebuhr's essays, Obama seemed to have the same realization. He quipped, "And that's as Niebuhrian as you can get." It's typical Obama: using Niebuhr to describe an African American church. During this campaign, Obama has set about preaching a different kind of liberal religion, one that includes the old social justice faith but is also deeply influenced by the experience of the black church."

Hmmh, Niebuhr in a black church focused on social justice, I wonder where that comes from? Below is my response to him, which I hope the New Republic's editors will approve and show in their comments section.

"E.J., thanks for your essay on Obama's articulation of his faith. It's by now well known that Jeremiah Wright subscribes to Black Liberation Theology. One of its main proponents is James H. Cone who in turn subscribes to Niebuhr. Which leads me to my final point; if the heavyweights of journalism like yourself could dedicate some time to doing further research and moving beyond the caricature of Wright painted in the media, it would become less confusing as to why Obama found some resonance with him. Wright, despite his incendiary statements, is by no means an intellectual lightweight and as you and other political commentators know from your interactions, intelligent people can disagree agreeably. For further contextualization of Wright's statements you can find some resources on my blog http://cultureofpolitics.blogspot.com/
You will find, there, a video of Wright directing Sean Hannity towards James Cone and you will find a link to a November 2007 interview of Cone by Bill Moyers, which you can also find at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11232007/watch.html
Cone mentions Niebuhr in this interview. Thanks."

For further historical contextualization of James Cone's comments on the crucifix and the lynching tree in the Bill Moyers interview, it's worth following up by listening to Terri Gross's interview of John Dominic Crossan on the historical context of crucifixion and Krista Tippet's Speaking of Faith episode on Neibuhr.

By the way, David Brooks also observed Obama's familiarity with Neibuhr a year ago.

George Packer's Commentary

2008-03-24T00:24:00.001-07:00

The New Yorker's George Packer with what I think is particularly thoughtful analysis of the speech. Here is an excerpt:

"Obama’s ability to contemplate the contradictions in Americans of all colors without going mad—to be made stronger by them—accounts for his power as a politician. He also pays the electorate the supreme compliment of assuming that it, too, can appreciate complexity."

Pat Buchanan's Take on Race

2008-03-23T18:52:00.001-07:00

Pat Buchanan puts in his own two cents on race in America and how to move forward. I quote

"First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known."

Jeremiah Wright GD America Sermon: Longer Excerpt

2008-03-22T19:12:00.001-07:00

No way to sugar coat these words but at least let's contextualize them and understand his larger point: Government's Change, but God doesn't; Government's Fail, but God doesn't. The words are tough but he is referencing a tough aspect of history.

Jeremiah Wright post-9-11 Sermon: A Longer Excerpt

2008-03-22T18:40:00.000-07:00

Here is a longer excerpt of the post 9-11 sermon by Jeremiah Wright. Seen in a fuller context, one discovers that the controversial comments were not actually his words but his citation of an American's diplomat's words. He clearly frames those comments as "a faith footnote." His ultimate point, based on this longer but truncated excerpt, is that the response to 9-11 should be a time of individual self-examination of one's relationship with God rather than a time for thirsting after vengeance. Whether or not one agrees with his comments or approach, it is important to at least know what his view are rather than those constructed by the media.

For the complete sermon and even more thorough contextualization, play this audio clip. Wright expounds on self-examination to include one's relationship with one's family and one's church family. He also makes two more points: it is a time for social transformation and a time for spiritual adoration.

powered by ODEO

Discussing Grandma

2008-03-22T15:26:00.000-07:00

I love watching these two men speak. John McWhorter of the conservative Mahnattan Institute and Glenn Loury of Brown University. For a longer excerpt, go here.

It's a good time to interrogate the way the format of cable television--the interruption by the anchor to assert his/her presence, the interruption of the discussion ostensibly to cover other stories but really to push in the advertisers' messages--disrupt nuanced discussion.