Archive for March, 2008

Nancy Pelosi says we Will have a Nominee Very soon After the last Primary June 3rd!

In contradiction to Hillary Clinton’s declarations this weekend about a credentials fight on the convention floor in Denver, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that the party will have a nominee soon after the Puerto Rico primary June 3rd.  The official primary period ends on June 10th.  After speaking at the California State Convention this weekend, Pelosi answered a couple of questions  from reporters.  Reporters asked whether the remaining uncommitted superdelegates will make their decision known by July?  Pelosi answered “[i]t will be much sooner, right after the public has voted.”   Another uncommitted superdelegate Bob Mulholland also chimed in, “[p]eople ought to just relax,” Mulholland said. “Whoever is ahead by 50 delegates or so, you’ll see the super delegates move that direction. It’ll just happen naturally.” Mulholland has not endorsed Obama or Clinton.  In her speech, House Speaker Pelosi told democrats to remain focused on November and to “keep your eye on the prize.”  Donna Brazil also said on This Week that the Democratic Party has an “exit strategy” and anyone who thinks that there will be a convention floor fight is sorely mistaken.  Brazil reiterated what seems to be a consensus of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates that the Party will not allow this fight to go to Denver.  Therefore, it looks like regardless of how many tantrums are thrown by the Clinton campaign, the party leaders are ending this fight well before the convention in August.  Thank goodness for small favors…this fight has been an emotional roller coaster for most engaged voters.  An additional fact worth mentioning is that even if the Democratic Party was silly enough to allow this to go to the Credentials Committee, the math still does not work in Clinton’s favor.  Howard Dean has already appointed 25 members to the credentials committee.  Each state sends three representatives to the Credentials Committee in Denver, Obama has won far more states than Clinton, therefore he will have far more representatives and support on the Credentials Committee.  That does not add up to a Hillary Clinton nomination.  Looks like the party leaders have made the decision not to join in on Clinton’s murder-suicide pact.

Minnesota Senator and Superdelegate Amy Klobuchar endorses Barack Obama!!

In a statement released to the Associated Press on Sunday night,  Sen. Amy Klobuchar endorsed Barack Obama for President.  In her statement Sen. Klobuchar said Obama “has inspired an enthusiasm and idealism that we have not seen in this country in a long time.”  The Senator compared Obama to former vice president and Minnesota Senator, Hubert Humphrey.  Obama won Minnesota by a wide margin in February over Clinton.  The official announcement will be made later today.  Also, in an effort to begin the process of uniting the party, seven North Carolina Democratic House members plan to endorse  Obama as a group BEFORE that state’s primary on May 6th. 

Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania Endorses BARACK OBAMA!!

Sen. Bob Casey endorses Barack Obama for President.  Sen. Casey is also a superdelegate.  The Senator makes his anouncement kicks ff a week long bus tour that Obama will be doing through Pennsylvania.  This gives Obama one more superdelegate as well as street cred in Pennsylvania.  Sen. Casey also has a lot of clout with working class Pennsylvanians as well as catholic voters. 

Obama voiced His Concerns regarding the Housing Crisis in a Letter to Bernanke a year Ago

March 22, 2007

The Honorable Ben Bernanke
Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20551

The Honorable Henry Paulson
Secretary
U.S. Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,

There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.

We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.

Working together, the relevant private sector entities and regulators may be best positioned for quick and targeted responses to mitigate the danger. Rampant foreclosures are in nobody’s interest, and I believe this is a case where all responsible industry players can share the objective of eliminating deceptive or abusive practices, preserving homeownership, and stabilizing housing markets.

The summit should consider best practice loan marketing, underwriting, and origination practices consistent with the recent (and overdue) regulators’ Proposed Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending. The summit participants should also evaluate options for independent loan counseling, voluntary loan restructuring, limited forbearance, and other possible workout strategies. I would also urge you to facilitate a serious conversation about the following:

* What standards investors should require of lenders, particularly with regard to verification of income and assets and the underwriting of borrowers based on fully indexed and fully amortized rates.

* How to facilitate and encourage appropriate intervention by loan servicing companies at the earliest signs of borrower difficulty.

* How to support independent community-based-organizations to provide counseling and work-out services to prevent foreclosure and preserve homeownership where practical.

* How to provide more effective information disclosure and financial education to ensure that borrowers are treated fairly and that deception is never a source of competitive advantage.

* How to adopt principles of fair competition that promote affordability, transparency, non-discrimination, genuine consumer value, and competitive returns.

* How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability.

Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short-term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.

Nevertheless, a consortium of industry-related service providers and public interest advocates may be able to bring quick and efficient relief to millions of at-risk homeowners and neighborhoods, even before Congress has had an opportunity to act. There is an opportunity here to bring different interests together in the best interests of American homeowners and the American economy. Please don’t let this opportunity pass us by.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

The REal Truth About HIllary CLinton!!

If the Clinton campaign is predicated on the experience and judgement that she she brings to the table, then the public should evaluate her based on her true experience and judgement.  The following is a list of statements and claims made by Clinton and her campaign that have been verified, investigated, and examined by third parties in an effort to determine truthfulness. 

1. In high school Senator Hillary Clinton was a member of republican group Citizens for Goldwater-Miller.

2. The following year, she was elected president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College. So, in her youth, there’s no denying that she absolutely was a Republican.

3.  Sen. Hillary Clinton is reported to be loved by Rupert Murdoch and have received many donations  from the Murdoch family. Rupert Murdoch is chairman of News Corporation which owns Fox News and is a notorious far-right conservative. Murdoch has also hosted a lucrative fundraiser for Sen. Clinton. Rupert Murdoch has also publicly professed his admiration Sen. Clinton.

4.  Sen. Clinton voted voted for the Kyl/Lieberman  amendment in support of military actions against Iran. In authorizing Bush to start another war with Iran, Clinton considered her vote as carefully as she considered her vote to authorize the war in Iraq.

5.  Just this past week Sen. Clinton again repeated the story that she landed in Bosnia under “sniper fire,” adding: “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” Clinton used to tell Iowa audiences: “”We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady.” And her 16-year-old kid? This latest deception is documented in full detail  in the Washington Post by a reporter who was there. The paper awards her statements “four Pinocchios,” a rating they reserve for political misstatements they describe as “whoppers.” When you tell the American public you faced gunfire, and it turns out all you really faced was a little girl with flowers – well, that’s as bad as it gets. When you dramatically say you made a journey that was too dangerous for the President, only to have it revealed that he made the same trip two months earlier – and that your teenage daughter was by your side – that only makes it worse. And there’s video. But it is the Bosnia whopper that remains the high-profile, easily documented embarrassment. Will the media run with it? It’s hard to tell.” 

6. The very far-right conservative columnist  William Kristol recommended that Sen. Clinton use the politics of fear against Obama. The day after Kristol’s recommendation, the Drudge Report (far-right conservative blogger), posted the photo of Sen. Obama dressed in traditional garb during a visit to Kenya. The photo was reportedly released by the Clinton campaign.  Within the same week, and also after Kristol’s recommendation, the Clinton campaign released the 3AM television commercial in Texas. Most viewers considered such ad as a traditional GOP attack and mistook it as such.

7.  Just last week, Sen. Clinton reached out to the architect of “the “vast right wing conspiracy” Richard Mellon Scaife and the conservative paper the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and pet project of Scaife, to make her  “he would not have been my pastor” comment about Obama.  The thing is that President Clinton actually reached out to Rev. Wright and invited him to the White House prayer breakfast when he was going through his personal issues.

8.  Sen. Clinton has given repeated endorsements for republican candidate John McCain as well as continued offenses against the Democratic Party in general. Three of such are: 1) “[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” 2)”I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.” 3) “Of course, well, you know, I’ve got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama’s whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002.”

9.  Sen. Clinton’s top campaign adviser, Mark Penn, is business partners with Charlie Black, John McCain’s top campaign adviser. Black is the Chairman of BKSH a lobbying firm that is a subsidiary of parent company Burson-Marsteller of which Mark Penn is the CEO. Another coincidence is the similarity of campaign slogans of the two candidates; Clinton’s is “ready on day one.” McCain’s is “ready to lead on day one.”

10.  “Sen. Clinton’s other honesty problem came with revelations that, while she claims to have been an internal NAFTA critic in the administration, she actually gave several presentations in favor of NAFTA at the time it was passed. The NAFTA controversy suggests other concerns, such as: If she were such a vehement critic, and the administration backed it anyway, how important was she? And, how can she claim credit for the good deeds of her husband’s administration and yet take no responsibility for its problems.”  Sen. Clinton said that “[she] has been a critic of NAFTA from the beginning.” However, “White House documents reveal that Sen. Clinton held five meetings on how to strategize toward winning congressional approval.  Sen. Clinton also helped the White House block opposition of NAFTA from labor and environmental groups.  Not to mention that she was the featured speaker at a pivotable meeting of 120 female opinion leaders who were asked to help secure senate approval.

11.  For six years, Sen. Clinton sat on the board of Wal-Mart, founded and operated by far-right conservative Republican Sam Walton.  Recently, Good Morning America investigated Clinton’s involvement with Wal-Mart.

12. The extensive efforts of the Clinton campaign toward accusing the Obama campaign of sending different messages to the Canadians regarding NAFTA - when, according to a high-level Canadian source, her campaign had done that.

13.  The real reason that Clinton may have opposed NAFTA privately is possibly because her defunct healthcare plan was not getting the attention that NAFTA was getting at the time. (per George Stephanopoulos).

14. ”Another possible truth as to why Senator Clinton might still be in this race, inflicting heavy damage on the presumptive Democratic nominee. That reason is Hillary 2012. Her staff understands and agrees that she has a very small chance of winning, but she is still willing to go after front-runner of her own party in the strongest possible words. Is she that cynical? Does she care that little about her own party or her own principles? Remember, a McCain win signs us up for more years in Iraq, a possible new war with Iran, an untold number of conservative judges on the Supreme Court, a probable overturn of Roe v. Wade, four more years of economic pain for the lower and middle class and … no healthcare reform for another four years.”

15. “Another issue that was emphasized just prior to the Ohio and Texas primaries was the prosecution of Antoin “Tony” Rezko, an acknowledged contributor to Senator Obama’s campaign. What wasn’t mentioned was contributions of his co-defendants, Stuart Levine and Joseph Cari Jr. to both Bill and Hillary’s campaigns.”

16. “Another matter that has not been fully flushed out in the media is the issue of the contributions of disgraced Clinton fund-raiser Norman Hsu.  Hsu has given widely to the Clintons and their causes; he raised $850,000 for Senator Clinton’s campaign, and gave $30,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative. Those contributions have allegedly been returned. But no one has confirmed whether Hsu has given any money to the foundation that funds the Clinton Presidential Library, or whether such funds have been returned.”

17. Sen. Clinton signed the pledge and agreed that Florida and Michigan would not count.

18. Guistra, Burkle, Clinton Library Donors story. Clinton received $10 million from the Saudi’s for Clinton library.

19. Clinton questionable spiritual advisers “the Family.”  “[T]he Family takes credit for some of Clinton’s rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing “religious freedom” in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.”

20. Sen. Clinton claims to have played a key and influential role in the negotiation of peace in N. Ireland. More specifically, the Clinton campaign claims that Clinton’s activities “helped bring peace to Northern Ireland.” Irish officials are divided as to how helpful Clinton’s actions were, and key players agree that she was not directly involved in any actual negotiations.

21. Sen. Clinton voted to authorize  the Iraq war.

22. The Rush Effect  in Ohio and Texas won Clinton the primary in Texas, and contributed significantly to her win in Ohio.  Barack Obama actually won Texas when both steps of the Texas primacaucus are combined the outcome is, Obama wins Texas.  Obama netted 5 more delegates than Clinton overall in Texas.

23.  The main stream media does not report stories putting Clinton in a false light. Time and time again, the negative stories regarding Hillary Clinton go unreported because it’s in the media’s interest to continue the false illusion that the race is in effect a horse race. If the media did report such stories with as much zealous as it reports negative stories about Obama, it would end Clinton’s candidacy once and for all.  There goes all those advertising dollars.

24. Hillary’s path to the nomination is all but impossible admitted by her campaign. The illusion of a neck and neck race  is generated by the media is being perpetrated by the media in order to boost the ratings of the various media outlets.

25. Hillary Clinton highly praised Ronald Reagan.

26. Has been complicit in the manipulation of the democratic process by Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts. First, by having her husband, former President Clinton, appear on the Rush Limbaugh radio show the day of the Texas and Ohio primaries.  Prior to Bill Clinton’s call in, Limbaugh had been urging his listeners to engage in the deceptive manipulation of the democratic process of crossing over to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to “bloody up” Obama for the general election.  Second, when asked about the “Rush Effect” during a Fox News interview, Hillary responded to such manipulations by chuckling it off.  By any means necessary, even if it means winning the nomination through the ill-intended, nefarious support of the far right wing of the Republican party.

27. Hillary claims to have raised $34 million in February to Obama’s $55 million. However, that was false according to third party sources.

28. Clinton’s campaign believes that she only has a slight chance of winning in the fall and yet she is willing to continue “bloodying up” and inflicting unprecedented damage to the presumptive nominee and to her own party.

29. Clinton claims to have “negotiated open borders” in Macedonia to fleeing Kosovar refugees. But the Macedonian border opened a full day before she arrived, and her meetings with Macedonian officials were too brief to allow for much serious negotiations.

30. Hillary Clinton continues to refuse to release her tax records.

31.  In contrary to Sen. Clinton’s claim, she was not involved in the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Obama Speech on Race

Philadelphia, PA | March 18, 2008
As Prepared for Delivery

 

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union …” — 221 years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars, statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least 20 more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution — a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty and justice and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part — through protests and struggles, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience, and always at great risk — to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this presidential campaign — to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for president at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together, unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction — toward a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners — an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional of candidates. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts — that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African-Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in this campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every single exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation, and that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy and, in some cases, pain. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s efforts to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems — two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change — problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television sets and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another, to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a United States Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over 30 years has led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth — by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I describe the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters. And in that single note — hope! — I heard something else: At the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories — of survival and freedom and hope — became our stories, my story. The blood that spilled was our blood, the tears our tears, until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black. In chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a meaning to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about — memories that all people might study and cherish, and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety — the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing and clapping and screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and, yes, the bitterness and biases that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions — the good and the bad — of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing to do would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America — to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through — a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care or education or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist between the African-American community and the larger American community today can be traced directly to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were and are inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education. And the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination — where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions or the police force or the fire department — meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between blacks and whites, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persist in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family contributed to the erosion of black families — a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods — parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pickup, building code enforcement — all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continues to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late ’50s and early ’60s, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way, for those like me who would come after them.

For all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it — those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations — those young men and, increasingly, young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race and racism continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or the beauty shop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity within the African-American community in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful. And to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they’re concerned, no one handed them anything. They built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and they feel their dreams slipping away. And in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns — this too widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy — particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction — a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people — that, working together, we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care and better schools and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans: the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who has been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for our own lives — by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American — and yes, conservative — notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress had been made; as if this country — a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen — is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope — the audacity to hope — for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed, not just with words, but with deeds, by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more and nothing less than what all the world’s great religions demand — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle — as we did in the O.J. trial — or in the wake of tragedy — as we did in the aftermath of Katrina — or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time, we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time, we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the emergency room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care, who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time, we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time, we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time, we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together and fight together and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. And we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them and their families, and giving them the benefits that they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation — the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today — a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, 23-year-old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, S.C. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was 9 years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches — because that was the cheapest way to eat. That’s the mind of a 9-year-old.

She did this for a year until her mom got better. So she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents, too.

Now, Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and different reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the 221 years since a band of patriots signed that document right here in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Rush Limbaugh listeners Crossing Over to Vote for Hillary Clinton subject to Jail time!!!

Those voters who were encouraged by Rush Limbaugh to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to “bloody up” Barack Obama for the general election may be indicted for voter fraud.  A felony punishable by $2,500 fine AND six to 12 months in jail. 

While this all makes for great talk radio and sounds like fun, there is one catch: What Limbaugh encouraged Republican voters to do in Ohio was a fifth-degree felony in that state, punishable with a $2,500 fine and six to 12 months in jail. That is because in order to change party affiliation in Ohio, voters have to fill out a form swearing allegiance to that party’s principles “under penalty of election falsification.”  On Thursday, March 20, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that the “Cuyahoga County Board of Election has launched an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against voters who maliciously switched parties for the March 4 presidential primary.” According to the report, “One voter scribbled the following addendum to his pledge as a new Democrat: “For one day only.”  “Such an admission amounts to voter fraud,” the report continued, attributing that conclusion to BOE member Sandy McNair, a Democrat. The report said the four-member board — two Democrats and two Republicans — had yet to vote on whether it would issue subpoenas, although Ohio’s secretary of state, Democrat Jennifer Brunner, is empowered to cast tie-breaking votes when the BOE is deadlocked.  Read article

I wonder how funny jail will be for those engaged in this malicious manipulation of the democratic process.  Is your precious leader Rush Limbaugh worth doing jail time for in order to provide him with amusement?  I am sure that most states have similar laws on the books with respect to this kind of malfeasance.  So…….I ask Rush Limbaugh listeners, as well as other conservative talk show listeners who were told to complete such a task…..are you feeling lucky?  What’s six to 12 months of jail time……a mere blip in life’s journey.

Bill Richardson ENdorses Barack Obama for President!!!!

Former 2008 presidential candidate and current New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson endorses Barack Obama for President!!  Bill Richardson is the nations only Hispanic governor.  Richardson was also appointed U.S. Ambassador of the United Nations and Secretary of Energy by Bill Clinton during Clinton’s administration.  This is a real coo for Obama.  Hillary and Bill Clinton really pursued this endorsement.  Bill Clinton pursued it so hard that he showed up in New Mexico, unannouced, to watch the Super Bowl with Richardson.  In his statement released last night, Richardson said, “I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America’s moral leadership in the world,”  Richardson further said, “[a]s a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama’s unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation.”  The New Mexico Governor will be making the official announcement later today.

25 Examples of Media Bias for Hillary Clinton

These are just a few of the obvious examples

Written by RKA

  1. Calling Hillary inevitable all through 2007, giving Obama a tougher mountain to climb.  The pundit class was writing off Obama before the voting even started.
  1. Declaring many debates in 2007 a Hillary win even when polls and focus groups frequently suggested otherwise.
  1. In summer 2007 as Obama worked Iowa with town hall after town hall, the media complained that Obama was not living up to the expectations of his 2004 convention speech.  That he was “leaving audiences flat” or being too dull and professorial.  But later in the campaign when Obama starts giving big speeches, suddenly the concern is that Obama lacks substance and that he is all talk and speeches.  The media refuses to cover his substance and then complains that he does not show enough of it.  
  1. Calling Obama “not black enough” before Iowa, then suddenly branding him as “the black candidate” after he went and won white votes in Iowa and the clintons needed to ghettoize him.
  1. Before SC, Obama was considered responsible for the words of every black person in America…so that when Brazille and Clyburn who are not affiliated with the campaign criticized Bill Clinton over his comments, the media played that as coming from the Obama campaign.  However, Hillary was considered not really responsible for the words of surrogates like Bob Johnson who were standing right on the stage with her.  And the media ignored the “not black enough” slur in his remarks by comparing Obama to Sidney Pottier and instead focused exclusively on Obama as drug user.
  1. A far higher level of scrutiny for Obama’s Rezko to Hillary’s Hsu.  And the Guistra, Burkle, Clinton Library Donors stories have gotten very little play.  If Obama had gotten $10 million from the Saudi’s for a library it would be a huge story.
  1. Far more coverage of “the snub” at the state of the union than a far more obvious snub by Hillary on Obama on the senate floor when Obama declared for president or Hillary’s refusal to congratulate Obama after many victories
  1. Declaring Super Tuesday a win for Hillary when Obama got more delegates.  
  1. Declaring March 4th a bigger victory than it was in terms of delegates.  Saying Hillary won Texas.  Also, saying that Hillary won Michigan and Florida.  CNN just reported today that Michigan will not do a re-vote.  In the same breath, the reporter then says that Hillary won Michigan but the votes will not count because Michigan held it’s primary too early.  There was no other candidate on the ballot, how do you win a contest when there is no opponent.
  1. Diminishing Obama’s victories as less consequential than Hillary’s by saying they are caucuses or unimportant states or have too many black voters.  
  1. Diminishing Obama’s victories by overemphasizing Obama’s black votes, but not emphasizing Hillary’s similar dependence on female votes.  The implicit assumption is that Hillary will get Obama’s voters but Obama will not get Hillary’s voters when, if anything, the opposite is true.
  1. Assassinating Obama over associates like Wright, but putting a near-embargo on stories about questionable religious advisors of Hillary or McCain.
  1. Rarely playing the very newsworthy tape of Hillary’s Senate Speech authorizing the Iraq war.  In general, the media have helped Hillary blur the distinctions on this issue and then marveled about how it is not much of an issue.
  1. Giving far more echo chamber to dirt about Obama (i.e. drugs), but hushing up similar stories about innuendo of the Clintons, John Edwards, and John McCain.   When the John McCain lobbyist story broke, the media protected their darling and made the whole story about the Times’ malfeasance instead of the very real and legit issues of hypocrisy on lobbyists.
  1. Giving very little play to the fact that the Rush effect is responsible for a lot of Hillary’s performance in recent primaries.
  1. Treating Hillary as mathematically viable when she is not.  They did not do this with Huckabee, but they are keeping Hillary on life support.  If Obama had lost as much, they would have stuck a fork in him and declared him done.
  1. When Obama says we should negotiate with enemies, the pundits call it a gaffe even though it is reasonable foreign policy.  When John McCain mixes up Iraq and Iran, it is a super quiet story in which McCain is given the benefit of the doubt he has earned by holding such great BBQ’s for the press.
  1. Saturday Night Live is engaged in a sustained and systematic attempt to ghettoize Obama and to paint him as a Bushian idiot and to portray Hillary as the victim of media bias when none of these things are even remotely true.
  1. Even when “attacking” HIllary, inevitably these are attacks that any moron can tell will help Hillary whip up female turnout.  Yeah, it may seem the media is “attacking” Hillary over Bill’s Sex life, over cleavage, over her tears…but every single time this happens, Hillary benefits with a female surge.   Don’t you think after 10 years of this the media might know that making a sexist attack on Hillary is tantamount to giving her an electoral gift?
  1.  More play to Obama’s praise of Reagan than Hillary’s praise of Reagan
  1. More play to Obama advisor NAFTA comments to Canada than similar comments by Hillary advisors
  1. More play to Samantha Powers’ comment on Obama being pragmatic on Iraq than similar things said by Hillary advisors.
  1. Giving Bill Clinton, as surrogate, far more air time than many candidates or surrogates for that matter
  1. Frequently saying Obama did not have his hand on his heart during the Pledge (Didi Myers did this uncorrected on CNN last night), when it was the national anthem and everybody who has ever been to a ball game knows that most people don’t do that.  In general, the media have pushed this unpatriotic meme to the point of absurdity with Obama with the flag pin and Michelle bashing.
  1.  Finally, despite all of this, they keep telling and convincing the public that they are really really really in the tank for Barack Obama.    This is the biggest lie of this campaign.  If the media were really in the tank for Obama, they would not be saying they were.  Where is the self-reflection over their love affair with John McCain?  There isn’t any…because when you are in the tank for a candidate, rule number 1 is not to talk about how you are in their tank.

Editorial Reaction to OBAMA Speech

Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial:

With his brilliant speech on race relations yesterday at the National Constitution Center, Barack Obama showed why his campaign for president has the aura of a mission.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial:

As an example of contemporary oratory, it was stunning. As political rhetoric, it was designed to do far more than damage control and, in the end, distilled the essence of his candidacy.

New York Times Editorial:

We can’t know how effective Mr. Obama’s words will be with those who will not draw the distinctions between faith and politics that he drew, or who will reject his frank talk about race. What is evident, though, is that he not only cleared the air over a particular controversy — he raised the discussion to a higher plane.

Los Angeles Times Editorial:

No single speech will recalibrate America’s consideration of race and politics, but we are closer today, thanks to this remarkable address, to facing our history and perfecting our nation.

Dallas Morning News Editorial:

Has any major U.S. politician in modern times ever given a speech about race in America as unflinching, human and ultimately hopeful as the one Barack Obama delivered yesterday? …

It was possibly the most important major speech on race in America since Dr. King died, and it probably saved Mr. Obama’s candidacy. If, in the end, Barack Obama does not win the nomination, let it never be said that he did not serve his country.

Chicago Sun-Times Editorial:

So Obama, in that exceptional way he has of brushing aside polemics, stepped up to a podium in Philadelphia and challenged us to see all the shades of gray, to embrace our greater and shared humanity.

It was a moving moment in American history to hear a man who could be president dissect the rancorous matter of race with such candor, and it called to mind other piercing addresses by the likes of FDR, Kennedy and King.

Sacramento Bee Editorial:

This was not a campaign speech; it was Barack Obama speaking to the ages. Clearly, he has thought about this issue for a very long time. Americans can learn from him, no matter what course the campaign may take.

Boston Globe Editorial:

… Obama took the opportunity to engage the question of race in America, starting a bold, uncomfortably honest conversation. He asked Americans to talk openly about the deep wells of anger and resentment over racism, discrimination, and affirmative action. It’s a call to break out of the country’s racial stalemate and finally reach a new national understanding.

Seattle Times Editorial:

In the annals of American history, a watershed moment should come from “A More Perfect Union,” Sen. Barack Obama’s powerful speech linking 221 years of race relations.

Washington Post Editorial:

Mr. Obama’s speech was an extraordinary moment of truth-telling. He coupled it with an appeal that this year’s campaign not be dominated by distorted and polarizing debates about whether he or his opponents agree with extreme statements by supporters — or other attempts to divide the electorate along racial lines. Far better, he argued, that Americans of all races recognize they face common economic, social and security problems.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial:

On Tuesday morning, at a moment of maximum peril to his own ambitions, Sen. Barack Obama delivered not just a speech, but an extraordinary gift to America: A way to transcend racial divisions and political cynicism and set about the task of forming a more perfect union.

The 45-minute address, delivered to an audience of 200 elected officials and religious leaders at Philadelphia’s Constitution Center, would have been remarkable under any circumstances. Under the circumstances that beset the senator from Illinois, it was the equivalent of a World Series walk-off grand-slam home run, a singular moment in the history of American political rhetoric.

Houston Chronicle Editorial:

Obama, confronted with flaws in his own church “family,” passes these tests. His thoughtful exploration of those flaws certainly was good for his campaign. But by fully and realistically exploring and discussing the hard topic of race, Obama did more. He showed deep understanding of this complex culture, and faith in the strength of the national family.

Newsday Editorial:

The complex calculus of racial animus in this nation is real. And it is powerful. And, as Obama said, “to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.” This nation needs to bridge that chasm. One speech won’t do it. Nor will one candidacy. But it would help if we stop using race as a political cudgel.

Charlotte Observer Editorial:

But Sen. Obama had a larger purpose in mind: not merely to handle a political problem, but to talk about race and the future of America. In a quiet, insightful, at times powerful speech he examined the reasons for both anger and hope. It was a message our nation sorely needs to hear, and one he is uncommonly qualified to deliver.

Newark Star-Ledger Editorial:

This was not a speech written by a political spinmeister just back from taking the pulse of the latest focus group. It was the heartfelt speech of a man who has spent a good part of his life thinking about what it means to be an American.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Editorial:

When we think of words in politics or governance that had to be said, we think of the Gettysburg Address or Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s admonition that all we had to fear was “fear itself.” And now we think of Obama’s speech on race – words that sorely needed saying.

San Jose Mercury-News Editorial:

If Obama is, as we hope, the leader who can draw people across political divides to create real change and a renewed optimism in America, then confronting race head-on was inevitable. Perhaps Pastor Wright did us all a favor.

The Oregonian Editorial:

But every American, young and old, should hear this speech. Obama certainly isn’t a post-racial candidate, if there is such a thing, and he didn’t claim to be one Tuesday. But he did offer an inspiring vision of a nation where unity eclipses division, and where the identity we cherish most is the one we all share:

American.

Des Moines Register Editorial:

His speech was frank and honest. And it offered hope that by confronting the racial resentments that continue to divide us, this nation can move forward toward becoming a more tolerant and understanding place.

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Editorial:

Then again, Obama has already astounded conventional wisdom with the progress he’s made in this year’s presidential campaign. For the nation’s sake, hope that America’s conscience was at least pricked to want to do better.

Kansas City Star Editorial:

It would have been politically expedient for Obama to disown Wright totally. But in a reflection of his own integrity, Obama said Wright was instrumental in the development of his faith and had other virtues that his critics were ignoring.

Eugene Robinson, Washington Post:

Yesterday morning, in what may be remembered as a landmark speech regardless of who becomes the next president, Obama established new parameters for a dialogue on race in America that might actually lead somewhere — that might break out of the sour stasis of grievance and countergrievance, of insensitivity and hypersensitivity, of mutual mistrust.

Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish:

I have never felt more convinced that this man’s candidacy – not this man, his candidacy – and what he can bring us to achieve – is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man’s faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian.

Courtland Milloy, Washington Post

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), who co-chairs the Maryland for Obama campaign, hit the nail on the head when he told me: “Obama has the ability to elevate our thinking beyond the chicken-yard scratching and biting. He calls on us to soar like eagles. And if he can’t always take you there, he can sure dare you to go.”

David Corn, MotherJones.com:

With this address, Obama was trying to show the nation a pathway to a society free of racial gridlock and denial. Moreover, he declared that bridging the very real racial divide of today is essential to forging the popular coalition necessary to transform America into a society with a universal and effective health care system, an education system that serves poor and rich children, and an economy that yields a decent-paying jobs for all. Obama was not playing the race card. He was shooting the moon.

John Dickerson, Slate:

Can you give a State of the Union address before you’re president? Barack Obama talked about race in America for 45 minutes in a nearly 5,000-word speech. That was longer than some of the annual presidential addresses, and though, yes, those speeches tend to cover more topics, this one felt like it addressed the actual state of our union more than those dreary January list readings presidents are obligated to perform.

Janny Scott, New York Times:

Yet the speech was also hopeful, patriotic, quintessentially American — delivered against a blue backdrop and a phalanx of stars and stripes. Mr. Obama invoked the fundamental values of equality of opportunity, fairness, social justice. He confronted race head-on, then reached beyond it to talk sympathetically about the experiences of the white working class and the plight of workers stripped of jobs and pensions.

Jonathan Alter, Newsweek:

In introducing the speech, Harris Wofford, the former senator from Pennsylvania, hinted at the historic weight that hung over the occasion. Wofford, a friend of Martin Luther King Jr.’s and a onetime adviser to President John F. Kennedy, recalled a White House conversation with King, after Kennedy had informed King that there would be no quick vote on the sweeping civil rights legislation pending. “Martin turned to me and said, ‘I had hoped we at long last had a president who had the intelligence to understand this problem and the political skill to solve it and the moral passion to see it through. I’m convinced … that he has got the intelligence and the skill. We’ll have to see if he has the passion’.”

Wofford suggested that Obama did in fact possess all three qualities. The critics, reporters, cable commentators—and ultimately the voters—will all be weighing that assertion in the aftermath of the most personal and extensive discussion of the legacy of slavery made by any major American politician in memory. For the moment, Obama gave them much more to talk about than the sermons of Jeremiah Wright.

Jim Mitchell, Dallas Morning News:

Politicians rarely achieve such a depth of humanity, in part because they’re captive to narrow life experiences, rigid ideology or consultants. It’s one thing to know intellectually that race is still a factor in American life and how it polls. It’s quite another to eloquently express the profound stain of past racial injustices without being trite, hostile or unabashedly partisan.

Jon Robin Baitz, Huffington Post:

Today we saw and heard a preview of our brightest possible American future in Senator Barack Obama’s glorious speech. This, then, is what it means to be presidential. To be moral. To have a real center. To speak honestly, from the heart, for the benefit of all. If there was any doubt about what we have missed in the anti-intellectual, ruthlessly incurious Bush years, and even the slippery Clinton ones (the years of “what is is”), those doubts were laid to rest by Barack Obama’s magisterial speech today. A speech in which he distanced himself from a flawed father figure, Reverend Wright, and did so with almost Shakespearian dignity and honor.

Video: Obama Speech on RAce and reaction From Obama non-supporter.

 


 

Obama – A GREAT speech, from a non-supporter

This diary is written by Miss Blue from DailyKos

Many of you are very aware I am not, and have not been a supporter of Barack Obama.This is not because I support Hillary Clinton – in fact, I like/dislike Hillary and Barack equally, for very different reasons.  My goal for 2008 is to see a Democrat in the White House.  I felt there were problems with both of the remaining candidates being elected.  I supported John Edwards, in part because I felt he was the most electable in the general election.  We can see where that went.  After watching Hillary throw her campaign in the toilet, I long ago realized that Obama would be our nominee, and I have hoped for the best.  The Wright controversy made me feel we were doomed.  I have called for Obama and his supporters to address this issue, strongly and unequivocally. I have been roundly chastised by the Obama fans on this site.  Called a Republican, accused of voting for John McCain, accused of being a Hillary-bot, accused of hating Obama with the fire of a thousand suns.  None of which are true, but so goes the hyperbole on this site these days.  This speech is what I wanted to hear.  It is truly heartening to see Obama is far better at reading the average voter than are many of his supporters on this site. Being skeptical that he could put this issue to rest with one speech, or ten, I am coming away from it feeling very heartened.  It was a great speech, perfect in it’s tone and it’s talking points.   Without throwing a decades-long friend to the wolves, Obama completely renounced the inflammatory anti-America statements of Rev. Wright.  This shows me loyalty, to friends and to country.  It shows me wisdom, and political acumen.  It shows me sensitivity, to human emotions and political whim.   Senator Obama addressed the racial divide without casting blame.  He shut down the black vs. white argument that has been threatening to take over this Presidential election.  Blame for fueling a divide was put where it belongs – the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys, the conservative coalition, the corporate whores who have used racial divides for their financial gain.  Obama’s speech was inclusive, rather than divisive.  All minorities were included in those who have suffered discrimination – not just black, but poor, women, hispanics, migrants of all ethnic backgrounds.  As a non-supporter going into this speech, and a white Catholic woman who figured I wasn’t involved in this issue other than as a worried Democrat, I felt included.  I felt like I mattered, even in a speech who’s main topic was supposed to be a Baptist preacher and his inflammatory remarks.   This speech, in my view, is the most important one of his career, as it determines where his political career is going in the near term.  He hit it out of the park.   Bravo.  And for that, Senator Obama, you have gained one more supporter.

Obama Responds To PASTOR Comments….AND gives a No Holds barred Interview regarding Rezco

 

“Most recently, you heard some statements from my former pastor that were incendiary and that I completely reject, although I knew him and know him as somebody in my church who talked to me about Jesus and family and friendships.” Obama said that pointing out racial differences only makes it harder to “deliver on the big issues we face in this country,” which he said include health care, the slumping economy, terrorism and caring better for veterans.  Obama, whose mother’s family was from Kansas and his father from Kenya, said he was speaking “as someone who has little pieces of America all in me.”  He said schools should do a better job of teaching all students African-American history “because that’s part of American history,” as well as women’s struggle for equality, the history of unions, the role of Hispanics in U.S. and other matters that he suggested aren’t given enough attention.  “I want us to have a broad-based history” taught in schools, he said, even including more on “the Holocaust as well as other issues of oppression” around the world.

 And as to the Rezco issue  Chicago Tribune article

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday [March 14, 2008], Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezco in his personal and political lives. The most remarkable facet of Obama’s 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.  Read interview

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT BARACK OBAMA!!

Subject: The Real Truth About Barack Obama!

  1. Did you know that Barack Obama is a devout Christian? He has been a member of the same United Church of Christ congregation for 20 years, and was married there to his wife Michelle in 1992.
  2. Did you know that Barack Obama often leads the US Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance?
  3. Did you know that Barack Obama is a strong friend of Israel and has spoken out strongly against anti-Semitism?
  4. Did you know his grandparents from Kansas were part of the “Greatest Generation?. His grandfather served with Patton’s Army during World War II, and his grandmother, a real “Rosie the Riveter”, worked in a bomber assembly plant back home.
  5. Did you know that Barack Obama was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one, before we invaded, even while he was running for the Senate, and knowing his opposition might be politically unpopular?

    “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” –Barack Obama, 2002

  6. Did you know Obama favors transparency over secrecy in our government? Did you know that Obama worked with Republican Senator Tom Coburn to pass one of the strongest government transparency bills since the freedom of information act? He’s calling it Google for Government and you can see the results at www.usaspending.gov. Sen. Obama has also released his own tax returns for public review.
  7. Did you know that after graduating with honors from Harvard Law School, Barack practiced civil rights law and also taught Constitutional Law for 10 years at the University of Chicago, one of the nation’s best law schools, where he was consistentl y rated by his students as one of their best instructors? Did you also know that he was the first African-American elected pres ident of the prestigious Harvard Law Review?
  8. Did you know that Barack Obama is an outspoken advocate for women’s rights and has been a principled defender of the civil rights of women?
  9. Did you know that despite the grueling schedule of running for President, Senator Obama remains a devoted family man, making time to do things like pick out a Christmas tree with his wife and two young daughters, or hurrying home to spend Valentine’s Day with them? Did you know he hasn’t missed a single parent-teacher conference while running for President?
  10. Did you know that Barack Obama has a stellar environmental record, including having the highest rating from the League of Conservation Voters (96%) of any Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican?
  11. Did you know that Barack Obama has been an elected legislator longer than Senator Clinton?
  12. Did you know that Barack is a member of all of these Senate Committees: Foreign Relations; Veteran’s Affairs; Health, Education, Labor & Pensions; Homeland Security and Government Affairs?
  13. Did you know that Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become law, and has introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted since he joined the Senate in 2005?
  14. Did you know that Senator Obama sponsored legislation working together with Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar, to keep Americans safe by keeping dangerous weapons out of terrorist hands? The two senators also visited the former Soviet Union to inspect the decommissioning of nuclear weapons. Sen. Lugar said of Sen. Obama, “He does have a sense of idealism and principled leadership, a vision of the future.”
  15. Did you know that Barack Obama is the only candidate running for president who voted against using cluster bombs in Iraq and the only candidate who supports banning the use of landmines?
  16. Did you know that, as an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama succeeded in passing legislation requiring the videotaping of police interrogations, gaining the respect and support not only of fellow legislators but that of the police, who had initially opposed the legislation?
  17. Did you know that Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, Ulysses S. Grant, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton were all younger when they took office than Barack Obama will be?

During election season many emails are circulated about the candidates. Some are true, some aren’t. It’s often difficult to determine the truth. We encourage you to visit the following non-partisan sites that do a good job of fact checking the candidates.

http://www.snopes.com/       http://www.factcheck.org/

A White Woman’s Open Letter to Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi

This diary is from dailykos and written by Tchrldy

This diary is written by a White woman over 50.  I am a Mother of four, three boys and one girl.  I support Barack Obama for President for reasons that have nothing to do with his race(s).  I have never considered myself to be part of an “identity group”.  I have always considered myself to be a liberal, progressive woman who is trying to provide for my family and to be the woman my mother raised me to be as well as an example of a good citizen to my children, especially to my daughter.  Mrs. Ferraro, the ignorance of your remarks left me speechless.  Senator Clinton, your response and the response of your campaign infuriated me.  Since the two of you are White women, and you initiated and orchestrated these remarks, I believe that it is my duty as a citizen, as a daughter and as a mother, who happens to be a White woman, to reject, renounce and censure the two White women who are responsible for these remarks and their use in political discourse.I call upon other White women, in particular Nancy Pelosi, arguably, the most powerful White woman in the country, to publicly reject, denounce and censure these women. It is not my intention to exclude African American women, Latinas or men, whatever their ethnicity, from this conversation.  However, I argue as a White woman (because the woman who made those statements and the woman whose campaign is using those statements to divide our party are White) that it is White Women who must take the lead in rejecting, denouncing and censuring these two women by saying that these two women do not speak for us and do not represent our sentiments.  Barack Obama is the front runner in the campaign for the Democratic nomination because he has the character, the policy proposals and the ability to unite this country around common ideals which value every human being regardless of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.  To claim that he is the front runner simply because he is Black, not only implies that his candidacy has no merit in its own right but also implies that women are powerless –whether because a Black man has received preferential treatment or whether Black women have neither the intelligence or the inclination to vote their conscience rather than their race. It promotes the idea that historically, White women are victims of Black men—an idea that has its origins in the racist discourse of the past in movies like “Birth of a Nation”.  It invites us to base our vote for President based upon fear and upon some kind of misbegotten racial pride. I have heard it said that White Women vote for Hillary as some kind of backlash against the fact that Black men received the vote before White Women.  My answer to that is that it was White Men not Black Men who refused to give White Women the vote for so long.    Why is it that the 3:00 AM phone ad pictured ONLY White girls and their White mother?  Don’t tell me that this was not a message to White women that the only way to safeguard yourself and your daughters is to elect a White woman as opposed to a Black man, as President.  If we, as a group are honest with ourselves, we will admit that this was one of the messages of that ad.  I, for one, am not deceived by it or by the invitation to victimhood that this ad represents. I was raised by a wonderful, strong, capable and blind White woman.  She was not rich.  Her mother was an alcoholic who was married six times.  She never knew her father.  She attended the St. Augustine School for the Deaf and Blind in Florida from the time she was six until she graduated from high school.  She could have whined and complained about life but she didn’t.  She was smart and capable and strong.  Upon graduation from the St. Augustine school, she attended Barry College (now Barry University) on a full academic scholarship from the Lions Club.  She graduated cum laude with a degree in Music and Education.  She taught sighted children in fourth grade with the help of a sighted aide.  She married a sighted man and stayed married to him until he passed away.  She instilled in my sister and me, the values that one makes one’s own destiny by hard work, perseverance and merit.  My mother was not rich.  She did not go to Yale, had no famous mentors, and never made a public name for herself. Partly because she was blind, she never saw racial or ethnic differences in the people she met and taught us to look at a person’s character rather than their skin color, religion or accent. Through her, I met wonderful, strong women from all ethnic and racial backgrounds.  Some were disabled, some were Cuban refugees, some were Holocaust survivors from the local Hadassah who learned Braille and translated her textbooks for her, some were local community activists who sought to counter racial discrimination in disability services for African Americans.  None of these women whined or complained about their lives. I am sure that there are many White women whose mothers, in their own way, taught their daughters the valuable lessons that my mother taught me. I am equally sure that African American, Latina and Asian women learned these same lessons from their mothers. Unlike our mothers, these two women, Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton, privileged as they were and are, choose to whine that women (particularly White women) are somehow precluded Read the rest of this entry »

OBAMA wins the MAGNOLIA State aka Mississippi!!!!! AND the DEMocratic caucuses in Texas!!

obama-7431681.jpg 

Barack Obama wins a landslide victory in Mississippi.  Final count, Obama 61%, Clinton 37%.  Obama and Clinton battled it out in the Mississippi Delta and Obama inhaled the sweet smell of magnolias.  Mississippi voters came out for the Illinois senator big time.  The turnout in Mississippi was two and a half times what the Secretary of State predicted.  Over 400,000 people came out to vote in the Magnolia State.  More people turned out in this primary than in the 2004 general election.  The state will proportionally distribute 33 delegates to the candidates.  Exit polls further revealed that Mississippi voters think that Barack Obama is more qualified to be Commander and Chief, 54% to Clinton’s 43%.  Obama also won the 17-29 voting block 67% to Clinton’s 32%.  Clinton won the 65 and older voting block 56% to Obama’s 44%.  Clinton also won white voters 72% to Obama’s 28%.  However, Obama won African-American voters 91% to Clinton’s 9%.  Of voters who decided in the last 3 days, Clinton won 55% to Obama’s 45%.  Mississippi voters were also asked if they believe that Obama is honest and trustworthy, 70% said yes.  When asked whether they believe that Clinton is honest and trustworthy, only 48% said yes.  Obama also increased his popular vote lead over Clinton by 100,000 votes. One interesting fact that came from the exit polls is that a majority of Clinton voters in Mississippi have a favorable view of John McCain.  Therefore, it stands to reason that if Clinton’s voters have a favorable view of the GOP candidate, that they are more open to being persuaded to vote for McCain in the general election than Obama supporters.  A possible Clinton electability issue that should be explored further.  Both candidates campaigned heavily in Mississippi.  The state has an open primary were independents and republicans voted. What was most on the minds of Mississippi voters, Katrina recovery.  The state has been devastated Katrina and recovery is not coming soon enough for its citizens.  Voters looked to the candidates for commitments to make the recovery a priority. Healthcare and the economy were also big issues for Mississippi voters.  Breaking News Update:  CNN just reported that Barack Obama won the Texas caucus.  This fact gives Obama a higher delegate gain in Texas than Clinton.  Because Texas is a two-step process, logic dictates that the candidate who comes out ahead after combining the two steps is the winner of the Texas primacaucus.  Obama received a combined total of 99 delegates from Texas, Clinton received a combined total of 94 delegates.  Final tally, a net gain of 5 delegates for Obama.  Therefore, Obama won Texas!  Obama continues to lead in the delegate count 1608 to Clinton’s 1478. 

Breaking News: New York Times reports, Governor of New York admits to being Involved in Prostitution ring

ALBANY – Gov. Eliot Spitzer has informed his most senior administration officials that he had been involved in a prostitution ring, an administration official said this morning. Mr. Spitzer, who was huddled with his top aides early this afternoon, had hours earlier abruptly canceled his scheduled public events for the day. He is set to make an announcement about 2:15 this afternoon at his Manhattan office.  Mr. Spitzer, a first-term Democrat who pledged to bring ethics reform and end the often seamy ways of Albany, is married with three children.  Just last week, federal prosecutors arrested four people in connection with an expensive prostitution operation. Administration officials would not say that this was the ring with which the governor had become involved. He had a difficult first year in office, rocked by a mix of scandal and legislative setbacks. In recent weeks, however, Mr. Spitzer seemed to have rebounded, with his Democratic party poised to perhaps gain control of the state Senate for the first time in four decades.  Mr. Spitzer gained national attention when he served as attorney general with his relentless pursuit of Wall Street wrongdoing. As attorney general, he also had prosecuted at least two prostitution rings as head of the state’s organized crime task force. New York Times article 

Eliot Spitzer comes from an affluent family that is worth about a half billion dollars.  Spitzer’s father is a self-made millionaire.  The Governor was the Attorney General of New York before becoming Governor.  Spitzer attended Princeton University as an undergraduate, and Harvard Law School, where he was editor of the Harvard law review.  Spitzer busted at least two prostitution rings while he was Attorney General.  Eliot Spitzer has been married to his wife for 20 years and has three daughters.  Apparently, text messages from the New York Governor are in the hands of federal prosecuters.  Federal prosecuters are saying that the main charge against the ring is money laundering.  It is also being reported that federal prosecuters may have come across such information while investigating the Gambino crime family, which is one of five families that control organized crime in New York City.   The Gambino connection has since been discredited.  The bust also reportedly involved other very high profile names.  The Governor busted several prostitution rings while Attorney General.  Many report that the Governor held himself out as a champion of ethics and morality, so many suggests that the fact that he is being implicated in such a ring is the peak of hypocracy on his part.  The Governor just gave a statement, ”I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family … my or any sense of right and wrong,” he said at a news conference at his Manhattan office. “I must now dedicate some time to rededicate my trust to my family.”  I apologize to my family…I apologize to the public. I am disappointed and have failed to live up to the standard that I have set for myself.”  The prostitution ring involved is called the Emperors Club VIP.  AP is reporting that Spitzer’s involvement was caught on a federal wiretap.  Sources say that the Governor is expected to step down from office.  David Patterson, lieutenant Governor, is expected to step up as Governor.  Because David Patterson is blind, he would be the first person with such an impairment to hold the highest office in a state.

Clinton has become the Suicide Candidate…..who refuses To be Intimidated by the Will of the voters

Top Clinton campaign surrogate and Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, said yesterday on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, that even if Obama is ahead in the popular vote, ahead in elected delegates, and ahead in states won, Clinton should still win the nomination.  In other words, okay kids (electorate),…go play in the romper room and let the grown ups take it from here.  Russert asked Rendell again…even if Obama is ahead in ELECTED delegates, should Obama win the nomination?  Rendell answered…no, Clinton should still be the nominee.  Rendell then said something to the effect of,  the voters don’t really understand what is going on so it’s up to us to make their decision for them..i.e. thank you kids….the big boys will take over from here.  It is the height of insult and condescension to the American people, who are more informed and engaged and have come out and participated in greater numbers than any other election in history.  That inescapable fact seems to be irrelevant to the Clinton campaign.  According to Campaign Clinton, the will of the voters is immaterial.  The campaign’s attitude appears to be that the voters don’t matter….us politicians (meaning the Clinton campaign and its surrogates), know what is best for America.  The campaign also continues to make the disingenuous argument that because Clinton won some of the big states that she somehow has an edge over Obama in a general election.  Does the Clinton campaign really expect the American people to believe that because she won a few LARGE states, by a small margin, that are ALWAYS won, with the exception of Ohio, by the democratic candidate in the general election, that hers is a stronger case than Obama’s double digit wins in both LARGE states and red states, therefore putting in play such republican states as Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota and Iowa for the general election???  Obama’s wins effectively enlarge the democratic electorate/base dramatically and demonstrably thereby significantly increasing the party’s chances of victory in the fall.  Just to put things in perspective, John Kerry won PENNSYLVANIA, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts in the 2004 election against George W. Bush.  So all the states that the Clinton campaign claims as ”better” wins than Obama’s, are solid blue states that have been won by the democratic candidate in the general election for the last several decades.  Therefore, it stands to reason and logic that Obama will also win such states in the fall.   Enough with the empty and false arguments.  The latest Clinton campaign strategy, at least in Mississippi, is the Jedi mind-trick strategy.  Clinton, behind in the popular vote, behind in states won, and behind in elected delegates, is attempting to offer Barack Obama the vice president position.  In other words, the person in the number two position, is offering the person in the number one position, the number two spot.  The Clinton campaign pushes this option in hopes of gaining votes by, what can only be described as, hoodwinking the American people into believing that such a ticket is possible.  Obama has flat out said that we will not see him as a vice presidential candidate on any ticket.  The offer is also illogical and inconsistent with Clinton’s assertion that Obama is not ready to be President.  Because every vice president has to be ready on “day one” to assume the presidential role, how then can you argue out of one side of your mouth that Obama is not ready to be President and out of the other side endorse him as vice president?  Either you believe that he is ready to be President or you do not.  We the voters are not so easily fooled as to accept both arguments as valid.  Luucy…you got some splaining to do.  Obviously, the campaign did not think either strategy through before putting it out there. To top it off, Clinton essentially said that John McCain is ready to be President, she is ready to be President, but Barack Obama is not.  Clinton actually argues that the republican candidate is a better option than the leading candidate in her own party.  In this writers opinion, Clinton has officially become the suicide candidate.  As she detonates herself, she plans to detonate the entire Democratic party along with her, thereby gifting the White House to the republicans in the fall.  It seems that Clinton’s loyalty is to herself first, to the Democratic party second, and to the the voters….a very distant last.  Viva Clinton!!!

OBAMA Wins Wyoming!!!!

g-pol-080308-obama-1p_grid-5x2.jpg 

Obama makes a comeback after last Tuesday.  Even though it is debateable as to who won Texas because Obama is leading in the second step of the primacaucus right now, Wyoming held its caucus today and Obama came out smelling like a rose.  Senator Barack Obama wins Wyoming handedly with a double digit margin over his rival Senator Hillary Clinton.  Obama will receive a proportional amount of the 12 delegates being allocated in Wyoming.  In addition, Wyoming also has 6 superdelegates.  The final tally was 61% to 38%.  This is a landslide victory for the senator from Illinois.  It was a record turnout in the the Equality State.  Nicknamed because it was the first state to give women the right to vote in 1869.  The irony is amazing.  It truly has earned its moniker as the state of equality given today’s results.   Another irony is that it is also the state that pushed John F. Kennedy over the top to win the nomination at the Democratic National Convention in 1960.  The turnout in Wyoming was so overwhelming that party officials had some issues accomodating everyone wanting to participate.  However, they were able to accomodate everyone.  There were 23 county caucuses across the state and a total of 59000 democrats registered in Wyoming.  Before the Wyoming caucus, Obama lead in delegate counts 1571 to Clinton’s 1462.  A total of 2025 delegates is needed to win the nomination. 

Breaking News: Michigan to Hold Caucus!! The New Republic reporting

MI Caucus Likely, Says DNC Rules Committee Member

A member of the DNC’s Rules And Bylaws Committee–the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for moving their primaries before February 5th–told me that Michigan plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.“They want to play. They know how to do caucuses,” the DNC source said. “That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary.” Michigan Democrats had originally planned on caucuses after the legally permissible Feb. 5 date, but then went along with top elected Democrats, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for an early primary.

Hillary Clinton won that Jan. 15 primary, but was the only major candidate on the ballot. Barack Obama and John Edwards had removed their names, see story

Breaking News: Associated Press reports that Samantha Power resigns from Obama campaign over “monster” comment

Obama Adviser Resigns

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Barack Obama adviser has resigned after calling rival Hillary Rodham Clinton “a monster.”

A campaign official told The Associated Press Friday that Samantha Power’s resignation is effective immediately.

Power told The Scotsman that Clinton is a “monster” who will stoop to anything to win. She tried to make the remark off the record, but the Scottish newspaper printed it anyway. She apologized in a statement and the campaign decried the remark.

Power is a foreign policy adviser to Obama and a Pulitzer Prize winner.

When asked about similar statements made by surrogates of the Clinton campaign, Howard Wolfson responded “there is a difference.”  I guess the difference is that this time it is the Obama campaign being accused as oppose to the Clinton campaign.  There are different rules for the Clinton campaign.  What were we thinking??  See story

Confusion STATES of MichigAn and FLORida

Well here we are……Michigan and Florida as states of confusion within the Democratic Party.  The Clinton campaign, Michigan governor and Clinton supporter Jennifer Granholm, republican governor of Florida who is a staunch supporter of John McCain and serious contender for the VP spot on the McCain ticket,  Bill Crist,  and Clinton supporter Bill Nelson, are all pushing for Florida and Michigan to be seated at the convention in Denver.  As mentioned in earlier writing, a decision as to how to deal with this issue should have been released long ago.  Further, there is no way that Michigan and Florida can be seated without it being patently unfair not only to the Obama campaign but to all the voters of other states that worked within the rules of the DNC.  Regarding Michigan, Clinton’s name was the only one on the ballot and there is no way that anyone can legitimately argue that it was a fair race, end of story.  As for Florida, millions of voters did not vote and thereby will be disenfranchised because they were informed by the DNC, and the state government, that their vote will not count.  Therefore, the Florida result does not represent the will of all the citizens of Florida.  To seat Florida according to the primary that was held in January would be patently unfair to citizens who did not vote based on incorrect information.  How can anyone argue that it would be fair?  How is that the democratic process?  This is not a situation were voters made an informed decision and decided not to vote. If Florida is seated, the voters of Florida were essentially lied to, the voters relied on that lie when they did not show up at the polls and will be severely damaged as a result.  Last I heard we are suppose to trust that our government will not punish us for listening to the rules and making decisions based on such rules.  Howard Dean said yesterday that the rules will not be changed in the middle of the game.  The DNC Chairman went on to say that to change the rules in the middle of the game would not be fair to either candidate.  Further, Dean said that the candidates agreed to or were aware of the rules with respect to Michigan and Florida before each of them began their run for the presidency. Dean concluded by saying that if Michigan and Florida wants to be seated at the convention in Denver, both states will have to work within the rules that were in place at the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign.  What that means is that the states will either have to host another primary or appeal to the credentials committee at the Denver  Convention.   Dean also said that there is no way that Florida and Michigan can break the rules and then be rewarded by being given the power to decide this election.  I agree.  All the other states were aware of the rules and worked within them.  The official statement from DNC Chairman Howard Dean went as follows:

The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a process to select delegates to the convention [another primary or caucus]; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates. We look forward to receiving their proposals should they decide to submit new delegate selection plans and will review those plans at that time. The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.  “Through all the speculation, we should also remember the overwhelming enthusiasm and turnout that we have already seen, and respect the voters of the twelve states and territories who have yet to have their say. 

Most are estimating that the cost of hosting another primary will be $25 million dollars for each state.  The Florida and Michigan governors are pushing for the DNC to pay for new primaries.  So the republican governor, and John McCain supporter, Bill Crist would like the DNC to go into it’s war chest for the general election and fix a problem that such governor and the republican controlled legislature created.  I am quite sure that the Republican Party of Florida is an a back room chuckling hysterically at the pickle that they have put the democratic party in.  Whatever money the democratic party throws at the Florida and Michigan situation is money that cannot be used in the general election race against John McCain.  Because Florida and Michigan violated the rules, each state should be financially responsible for for hosting a re-do in its respective states.  I am sure that all the voters who have donated funds to the DNC from all over the “United States” are not interested in encouraging the temper-tantrum bad behavior of Michigan and Florida by financing a do-over. 

The Rush Limbaugh EFFECT on Texas and OHio Primaries…..

There is a question that should be answered with respect to recent results in the Ohio and Texas primaries.  Rush Limbaugh who broadcasts to a national audience urged his listeners in Ohio and Texas to influence the democratic primaries on March 4th by voting for Hillary Clinton.  Limbaugh’s motivation?  To drag out the democratic race and get Obama all “bloodied” up from Clinton attacks for the general election against John McCain.  Apparently, the Clinton campaign doesn’t care how it wins because Bill Clinton went on the Rush Limbaugh show (Bill Clinton on Rush Limbaugh?????) the day of the primaries in an effort to, what can only be interpreted as, encourage such strategy.  A little back story for those who have lived in Siberia during and since the Clinton administration.  Rush Limbaugh hates Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Limbaugh has done nothing but insult, rail, disparage, and spew vitriolic attacks against the Clintons since Bill Clinton was elected in 1992.  So the fact that Bill Clinton went on the radio show of his most vehement public enemy tells me that he endorses this republican manipulation. In Texas, it turns out that Obama did win the republican vote 53-46, however, of the conservative republicans who voted, Clinton won them 52-45 for the first time since Super Tuesday.  Republican turnout in the Texas and Ohio primaries was up overall by 3-5 points from previous open democratic primaries.  Not to mention that conservative republicans voting in the democratic primary was up by at least 7% from previous contests.  Side note: the conservative wing of the republican party sole mission is to keep the Clintons out of the White House, the Senate, and any other public office.  However, Clinton won an additional 16% of the conservative republicans voting in the Texas democratic primary who said that Obama is the most electable candidate.  Coinkydink? probably not.  One can conclude from such a contradiction that the 16% are voting for who would be the weakest candidate in the general election so that their candidate, John McCain, has the best chance of winning.  Considering that the Texas primary was won by Clinton with only a 2.8% margin, and republican turnout in the Texas primary was up from previous state contests by at least 3% and in some states as much as 5%, chances are that such tainted votes played a significant part in Clinton’s win in Texas, and to a lesser extent, Ohio.  I have said this before, the longer the democrats drag this out, the increased likelihood of mischief by the Republican Party thereby allowing the conservative right wing of that party to choose the democratic nominee rather than the choice being made by true affiliates of the party.   As mentioned in an earlier post, even republican governor and staunch John McCain supporter,  Bill Crist is trying to influence the choice of democratic nominee.  Those who think that a long drawn out fight is good for the Democratic Party should respond to the points in this post.  This is not the way to get more voters involved in the process especially if such process is ripe for and can so easily be manipulated thereby making all the voter enthusiasm, dedication, and commitment, moot.

McCain has a clean sweep and Becomes the Republican Nominee!

John McCain wins Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island to become the Republican nominee.  McCain can now begin concentrating on the general election as well as unifying his party.

CLINTON makes ComeBack with Wins in Ohio, Texas(??), and Rhode Island

hillary-slide-d.jpg