The Tea Party contingent is populist and vocal, but their numbers are not sufficient to elect Palin. She polls badly with independents and many republicans don't have confidence in her either. She has yet to do anything that indicates to me she has a level of political savvy on the same level as displayed by Obama in the crafting of his successful run. Taking on this talking head gig only solidifies her as a non serious candidate in my mind. I would not consider any of the paid blowhards of the left or right as potential leaders of the free world. Just not what I think of as Presidential resume builder. She left office to make the money and cash in. I'm okay with that, since her cynical selection by McCain brought her a lot of grief, which although she willingly signed up for, was not entirely deserved. I don't begrudge her salvaging a career and some wealth from that mess, which is why I encourage you to follow the link below and pick up her best seller at Amazon.
Showing posts with label 2008 Campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Campaign. Show all posts
January 15, 2010
Drive By Opinion: On Palin
The Tea Party contingent is populist and vocal, but their numbers are not sufficient to elect Palin. She polls badly with independents and many republicans don't have confidence in her either. She has yet to do anything that indicates to me she has a level of political savvy on the same level as displayed by Obama in the crafting of his successful run. Taking on this talking head gig only solidifies her as a non serious candidate in my mind. I would not consider any of the paid blowhards of the left or right as potential leaders of the free world. Just not what I think of as Presidential resume builder. She left office to make the money and cash in. I'm okay with that, since her cynical selection by McCain brought her a lot of grief, which although she willingly signed up for, was not entirely deserved. I don't begrudge her salvaging a career and some wealth from that mess, which is why I encourage you to follow the link below and pick up her best seller at Amazon.
December 2, 2009
Flashback: The Mo'Kelly Report/Political Season Debate of the 2008 Campaign
This was just a lot of fun arguing about. Remember back during the campaign when Cornel West got cheesed off at Obama for not going to the King celebrations in Memphis? Well, Mo'Kelly posted on the subject, as did I and I stopped through his blog to comment on it, as that whole incident really frosted my cake. Someone visited the blog from a permalink at that post recently and I reread the debate I had with Mo'Kelly. It was a lot of fun. Read the exchange and at the end, leave your vote in the comments on who you think wins the argument. Flashback.
Political Season
West and Tavis both work my nerves with this kind of "blackness" testing. Obama is busy running a campaign for the nation's highest office. While it certainly would have been nice if Obama could have attended, that he did not go does not change or affect a damn thing of consequence in the lives of black people.
Tavis and West's reaction is no different than the people jumping on Obama for Wright's comments. Its the same logic. So what would they have us believe? That Obama don't care about black folks because he passed on the King events? Is that what we are going to be doing to the brother from here out, jumping in his grill every time he doesn't show up for some purely symbolic stuff and claim he is distancing himself from black folk for political reasons? Because he doesn't come and genuflect at some civil rights icon as the West and Tavis think he should? Its bull.
Obama has got to take care of business. King is dead and he gon stay dead whether Obama came to lay a wreath or not. Stop hating on the brother over BS that is less important than the herculean task he is trying to accomplish.
If Obama becomes president, I'll appreciate it if he shows up for every negro dinner, event and awards show, that will be real nice. But if he never goes to a one, but spends his time being a damn good president and taking care of business in a way that means I as a citizen can take care of business, I will be perfectly fine with that.
As Dyson said at the SOBU, stop hatin on Negroes!
As I read it, they are complaining that Obama is trying to put distance between himself and race issues, coming off the J.Wright controversy. Lets assume they are correct. SO WHAT!? Obama is trying to win an election, one in which he has to overcome the political impediment of being black. If he were running to be president of black america, then I would say it mattered, but he's not. He's running for POTUS. He's got to juggle and manage the impact of racial dynamics on his campaign, like it or not.
This idiotic idea that he must put his blackness front and center every damn day as apparently West and Tavis want to advance is just plain stupid. First off, the brother can't escape the race perceptions of his actions and never will. That goes for white people and black people. Second, just because he is currently the most prominent black man in America and poised to make history does not mean that he has to sign on for every symbolic black event or thing in order to demonstrate his negro bona fides again and again.
He's got to get the damn job. Tavis and West bitching because he didn't come to the cultural equivalent of a really big Negro chicken dinner is just frikkin stupid. These are the same guys who sat around at the SOBU talking up and down about accountability. Is this the kind of BS they want to hold him accountable for, that he didn't come to the big Negro chicken dinner? When they talked about accountability, I thought we was talking about polices and practices, the rule of law, educational investments, stuff like that. But it seems like what they want to hold him accountable for is proving his blackness by genuflecting before the sacred cows of the civil rights establishment. Thats the kind of BS thinking that produces a moribund NAACP that doesn't get why representing racists at Dunbar Village is wrong, or an Urban League that puts out a compact with America thats little more than a wishlist of government programs that says squat about what black people will do to solve their problems.
This brother is playing for the history books and their big accountability, finger wagging, stern voice of disapproval is because he didn't come to the big chicken dinner? Thats house negro thinking and they should both get their heads out of their ass.
I'm an attorney by training, so its all about winning the argument with me. So leave your vote in the comments. Who won this debate?
Political Season
West and Tavis both work my nerves with this kind of "blackness" testing. Obama is busy running a campaign for the nation's highest office. While it certainly would have been nice if Obama could have attended, that he did not go does not change or affect a damn thing of consequence in the lives of black people.
Tavis and West's reaction is no different than the people jumping on Obama for Wright's comments. Its the same logic. So what would they have us believe? That Obama don't care about black folks because he passed on the King events? Is that what we are going to be doing to the brother from here out, jumping in his grill every time he doesn't show up for some purely symbolic stuff and claim he is distancing himself from black folk for political reasons? Because he doesn't come and genuflect at some civil rights icon as the West and Tavis think he should? Its bull.
Obama has got to take care of business. King is dead and he gon stay dead whether Obama came to lay a wreath or not. Stop hating on the brother over BS that is less important than the herculean task he is trying to accomplish.
If Obama becomes president, I'll appreciate it if he shows up for every negro dinner, event and awards show, that will be real nice. But if he never goes to a one, but spends his time being a damn good president and taking care of business in a way that means I as a citizen can take care of business, I will be perfectly fine with that.
As Dyson said at the SOBU, stop hatin on Negroes!
-
Here's a thought...and I'm not trying to "start anything"...but what if Dyson was one of the leaders that Tavis alluded to in his commentary who privately chastised Obama but publicly gave him a free pass (Dyson was in Memphis)...would that change your thought?
Again, this is hypothetical. I wasn't in any of these conversations and in no way am I suggesting that Dr. Michael Eric Dyson had anything negative to say about Senator Obama. I just thought given your end quote and thus your willingness to take "some" comments of Black leaders to heart on these issues...what would you say if Dyson (and/or others) echoed Dr. West's sentiment? Is Dyson, West and Smiley ONLY good enough to listen to when he/they echo your opinions?
Remember, this sentiment was first uttered by Dr. West, a HUGE Obama supporter...someone who still campaigns for him. Tavis' commentary asks the question of whether Obama will get a blank check free pass from Black folks on all such issues. Tavis didn't raise this issue...Dr. West did.
Many people feel Tavis is hypercritical of Senator Obama. But this really isn't emanating from Tavis...it's from Dr. West, a campaign surrogate. Should it be then be dismissed as easily?
Something to consider... - Political Season said
As I read it, they are complaining that Obama is trying to put distance between himself and race issues, coming off the J.Wright controversy. Lets assume they are correct. SO WHAT!? Obama is trying to win an election, one in which he has to overcome the political impediment of being black. If he were running to be president of black america, then I would say it mattered, but he's not. He's running for POTUS. He's got to juggle and manage the impact of racial dynamics on his campaign, like it or not.
This idiotic idea that he must put his blackness front and center every damn day as apparently West and Tavis want to advance is just plain stupid. First off, the brother can't escape the race perceptions of his actions and never will. That goes for white people and black people. Second, just because he is currently the most prominent black man in America and poised to make history does not mean that he has to sign on for every symbolic black event or thing in order to demonstrate his negro bona fides again and again.
He's got to get the damn job. Tavis and West bitching because he didn't come to the cultural equivalent of a really big Negro chicken dinner is just frikkin stupid. These are the same guys who sat around at the SOBU talking up and down about accountability. Is this the kind of BS they want to hold him accountable for, that he didn't come to the big Negro chicken dinner? When they talked about accountability, I thought we was talking about polices and practices, the rule of law, educational investments, stuff like that. But it seems like what they want to hold him accountable for is proving his blackness by genuflecting before the sacred cows of the civil rights establishment. Thats the kind of BS thinking that produces a moribund NAACP that doesn't get why representing racists at Dunbar Village is wrong, or an Urban League that puts out a compact with America thats little more than a wishlist of government programs that says squat about what black people will do to solve their problems.
This brother is playing for the history books and their big accountability, finger wagging, stern voice of disapproval is because he didn't come to the big chicken dinner? Thats house negro thinking and they should both get their heads out of their ass.
-
OK, Aaron...let's go one step further. I'm clear on what you feel is essentially "unimportant" (paraphrasing you) in the grand scheme of things.
My next question would be this...where is the line. At what point (if any) does Obama manage to offend your sensibilities in terms of his allegiance to African-Americans (who support him 80%)?
If 80% of the unions supported Obama, you can bet Obama would have to answer to them and those most prominent in the unions. If 80% of the Latinos...etc. etc.
At what point is it reasonable to expect, ask or require Obama to come to the table SPECIFICALLY for African-Americans since we support him at a rate FAR surpassing any other ethnicity or specific interest group.
We've made it clear we have an "invested" interest in him. What is so wrong about Tavis (or Dr. West) or others saying in effect...we've invested in you...but let's be sure you're invested in us?
In other words, "at what cost" are you willing to get Obama into the White House? And be mindful, the more you are willing to sacrifice, the more you prove Tavis' point.
Also, how confident are you that Obama (if elected) will THEN do the things that so many of us as Black folks would "like" him to do? We hear the argument "he has to play the game to win." OK, but what about after he wins? Some say, he's not gonna be any MORE in our corner after he wins...if he hasn't had to ALONG THE WAY to winning.
Remember, I'm an Obama supporter. We can't be so blinded with wanting this man to become president that we forsake our core values and core issues in the process. Because if we do now...they won't be addressed later, and it will be too late. - Political Season said...
-
Mo, you ask some good questions and here are what I think are some good answers....
At what point (if any) does Obama manage to offend your sensibilities in terms of his allegiance to African-Americans.
I blog around the topic of black accountability, its an issue I care about. Obama is going to offend my sensibilities when he knowingly does something harmful to the african american community and when that happens, I'll be among the first to call him on it.
"at what cost" are you willing to get Obama into the White House?
Well, if his non-attendance at the King commemoration or the SOBU earlier this year are examples of "costs" to get him elected, I'll pay those costs all day, every day. That stuff is completely irrelevant to solving real problems faced by real people. Black intellectuals opining or genuflecting at the tomb of fallen heroes does not reduce poverty, crime in our streets, create jobs, safeguard the country or anything else relevant to the day to life of black people. In my view, such things are not costs at all, and its that kind of focus on symbolism over substance among black thought and opinion leaders that explains the moribund, ineffective dithering of the organizations which make up the civil rights industrial complex. For crying out loud, he is trying to become LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD and they are bitching because he didn't come lay a wreath and lament King's passing in Memphis? WTF! Lord save me from such nattering nabobs missing the forest for the grass. He spoke to the King legacy that day in PA, IN or wherever he was. In case somebody missed it, Barack don't have a problem getting an audience. Tavis and Cornel both of late have worked my nerves with an attitude that says that your "black" commitment is suspect unless you demonstrate it at the times and places they deem important. Don't come to the SOBU? Get your black card pulled...don't come to the King event, get your black card pulled and your integrity, blackness and motives questioned. Its bullshit.
What is so wrong about Tavis (or Dr. West) or others saying in effect...we've invested in you...but let's be sure you're invested in us?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with them or others saying that. But for cats that are intellectuals, thought and opinion leaders, if you are going to call the brother on the carpet and question his black commitment, I expect it to be over a substantive issue, not he didn't show up to a symbolic Negro dinner event when he is clearly busy with other serious stuff and the world ain't gon come to an end cause he couldn't make it. Dunbar Village is just as F'ed up today as it was on King day and the day before. Didn't nothing change because they went to Memphis. Ain't nothing magical about Obama going or not going. He's da man, its nice if he can come, but I understand if he don't, cause he is a little busy TRYING TO MAKE SOME BLACK HISTORY, while these guys are in Memphis reliving it. His blackness is an implicit and explicit fact of his being that cannot be evaded or hidden. He is who he is. I don't need him to reassure me of that by attendance at symbolic Negro dinners.
how confident are you that Obama (if elected) will THEN do the things that so many of us as Black folks would "like" him to do?
I don't need him to be the black president. I need him to be The President and do the job. And lets be for real right now. Barack is going to do or not do stuff that is going to be ticking off black people and in particular folk like West and Tavis who can be as race focused as a Jesse or Sharpton. I'm a conservative. Government is not the answer to our problems, and I already got a Savior, Obama need not apply. I don't need him to become President and try to solve every black problem with government solutions. We black folk should want the man to just be a damn good president. How he does that will be informed by his blackness and he is already sensitized to our issues, which does not guarantee he will do what various black folk will want, but should mean we always get a hearing.
At the SOBU, Dyson talked about accountability and to me that means we expect him to do the job and lead the country in the right direction. Not a black direction, the right direction. I support him, but politically, I'm very far apart from the guy. We don't agree on social issues and I think he is a tax and spend, big government liberal. His views are quite left wing. But I plan to hold him accountable. That means, he want to raise taxes on me, I'm gonna oppose that. That means he want to start a stupid big government program or something thats a bad idea, I'm gonna oppose that. It also means when he wants to do something that makes sense, I'm gonna support that.
It doesn't mean, and I pledge right now, that I'm gonna bitch when he don't show for a Negro dinner or don't do some other symbolic, feel good BS. I already know he is black. I don't need that. We don't need that. We need somebody to run the damn country right and that’s the only thing I require of the man. If he handle his business, I can handle the Negro dinners myself. -
No, I wasn't directly comparing Obama to Bush in terms of lack of empathy for Black people, but I was making the point that seemingly "minor" actions matter.
I agree, Black folks are catching hell on a variety of levels, and that isn't something I think anyone who cares about Black people would debate.
But we as a people are ones who can walk and chew gum at the same time...meaning, the minor issues don't necessarily have to be pushed aside because major ones exist.
It's a contradiction I would say. On one hand you argue that the whole "King thing" is minor, but at the same time, don't concede that if it is truly "minor" then all the more reason for him to acknowledge it in the way that most of America chose to acknowledge it. Not just Black people...most of America.
The point Dr. West was in part trying to make was that King superseded any particular race of people and what he embodied was so much more important than any race for any office.
That was over and above and separate from the superficial connections of race or color. This is not a "lapel pin" discussion. We aren't talking about an empty expression of "patriotism" to Black America. Dr. West was saying, it was the least you could do..."should" do even, given at one moment you're "conscious" and spend 30 minutes on CNN talking about race only.
I think it's disingenuous to pigeon hole or trivialize the concerns of Tavis and Dr. West as only "Black" concerns. There are some core issues which disproportionately affect African-Americans, and many times they are wrongly termed as "Black issues."
As the presidential season moves forward, the discussion for many in the Black community is (or should be) making sure that Barack is in concert with the concerns of the community on issues such as education, healthcare, the future of Affirmative Action (two major ballot initiatives in November) and urban renewal/crime.
It's not to be oversimplified as "this Black man needs to talk about 'The Man' more and do more for Black folks"...not that at all.
This is where I disagree with your "Negro Chicken Dinners" analogy.
It's about making sure that in a consciousness sense, Barack (or any other candidate for that matter) understands the direct connection between policy and Black people's predicament.
The philosophical component to this debate is that in theory, if Obama doesn't hold the things dear to his heart that an overwhelming (not all, but a majority) portion of African-Americans already do...it calls into question whether the policy-related decisions in the future will also be incongruous.
The same argument is made about McCain in terms of his one-time reluctance previously to sign the King holiday into law and his views on continuing the war in Iraq presently. McCain has not been and is not in step with the core issues of African-Americans and does not care about the same types of things that the majority of Black folks do. And no, I'm not comparing Obama to McCain...but I am saying this is my estimation of the thought process behind West and Smiley and their critique of Obama's actions. West and Smiley ask the question in effect...is Obama in step with our core issues? Or at the minimum, acknowledge those moments when he isn't.
It's a reasonable, practical and intelligent approach. To respond with any argument about how close Obama is to the White House only proves their point.
That's West's point when he talks about the tension between truth and power. I get this feeling that we're SO caught up in getting this man elected, that we won't be honest enough with ourselves and each other to engage in a legitimate political debate. Not minutia, but legitimate political debate. King I would submit (dead or not) is not political minutia. - I posed some questions but here are MY answers. I do believe that Obama is in step with African-American core issues. And I do believe Obama "should" have been in Memphis. And I do think Dr. West and Tavis were right in expressing either their disappointment in his absence.
To shoot them down because they were disappointed in Barack is counterintuitive to this process. We shouldn't just "shut up" because Barack is running for the White House. It's all the reason to speak up even more. Or as they say, speak now or forever hold your peace. It's not the job of West or Smiley to cheerlead for any candidate or remain silent in the process.
I want Barack Obama to become President of the United States, but not at the cost of disregarding the core issues which affect African-Americans. That's my litmus test and he passes it. But it's more than fair to remind folks we all need to have one, one other than wanting a first Black President.
We would never be this hyper-critical of criticism against in-house criticism of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton or even John McCain...so why get bent out of shape when we hold Barack to the same standard?
If he's truly presidential material, the scrutiny should be both welcome and reasonably dealt with. We need to stop "protecting" him unnecessarily. My confidence in him is such that we don't need to mother him.
I want him to win the presidency the right way...not because of 80% blind support by African-Americans wanting a Black president.
-
*Sigh* We see it differently.
it's about making sure that in a consciousness sense, Barack (or any other candidate for that matter) understands the direct connection between policy and Black people's predicament.
The philosophical component to this debate is that in theory, if Obama doesn't hold the things dear to his heart that an overwhelming (not all, but a majority) portion of African-Americans already do...it calls into question whether the policy-related decisions in the future will also be incongruous.
Given the totality of the circumstances, his absence is no basis to challenge his black consciousness in any way shape or form based on the record before us. The man just gave the seminal speech on race in America, but his consciousness is in question because he chose not to attend but to focus on his campaign?
I didn't go to Memphis, most of us didn't, and we ain't made no seminal speech on race lately either, or stand on the cusp of making some black history. Nobody is pulling our black card.
I want him to win the presidency the right way...not because of 80% blind support by African-Americans wanting a Black president.
The 80% or more of black folk supporting Barack are not doing it because he is black. He ain't the first to run. Sharpton has run, we didn't all vote for him. Barack is being supported by us because he is qualified, credible and bonus, he's black.
Winning the right way should not mean that Barack is held to artificial standards of black "consciousness" based on the personal preferences of Tavis and West or whether he makes the proper slavish devotion to civil rights sacred cows.
If we are going to pull his black card, then pull it for something serious. Not because he passed on an event that has nothing but symbolic value. Symbols are fine, but we spend way too much time focused on symbolism and appearance, rather than substance and quality of result. My beef with Tavis and West is that they seem to think that these symbolic things have more importance than they really do. The SOBU is a nice event, but didn't nothing change in the hood after it was over and they been doing it for 10 years. We can commemorate King every single year, but I don't want to just do that in word, I want to do it in deed as well. And to question Barack's commitment to his people because he chose to focus on the election rather than go to Memphis is an unfair, unbalanced, immature way to measure his commitment to his community or anybody else's. Now if thats going to be the standard, then Tavis and West and all other prominent Negroes better have they ass in Memphis every year, or I'm calling them out as lacking in commitment.
Jeremiah Wright has had his entire life of service in ministry and to his country as a Marine boiled down to 60 seconds of video, and his patriotism, his heart and his character are all being questioned based on that 60 seconds of harsh criticism of America. What Tavis and West are doing in this instance to Obama is every bit as unfair and wrong. I think its beneath them and it lowers my opinion of their acumen and their judgment regarding the issues of the day.
So we see it differently Mo. And thats okay.
I'm an attorney by training, so its all about winning the argument with me. So leave your vote in the comments. Who won this debate?
May 7, 2009
Bristol Is Not the Example For My Child
The decision to make a virtue of the family issues of the Palins as an example of family values remains I think a very bad one. I'm sorry, but Bristol Palin as a soldier in the ongoing culture wars in my mind spells epic fail.
That was Bristol a few months ago. This is Bristol this past week.
Some people make a lot over the flip flop of opinion about abstinence on her part. I really think its irrelevant. She's a teenage girl (growing up very fast now). She's a kid, and a kid mixed up in the grown up world of bloodsport politics. I'm actually somewhat appalled that she's talking on TV at all, because frankly I really don't see what purpose there is for it, other than some damage control for her own personal image. I guess I could see it on that grounds. Certainly not as some part of a platform to support abstinence. Bristol was no supporter of abstinence before her pregnancy. I'm skeptical, given her prior statements, that she is particularly committed to abstinence now. But it doesn't really matter. Bristol is a kid. We knew her story already.
I shake my head everytime I read fawning commentary by conservatives at HotAir and similar online watering holes for cons about how she is such a tremendous example for abstinence, because she is living firsthand with the consequences of going the other way. Can I let you in on a little secret? Bristol Palin is not the example I'm going to set before my lovely nine year old daughter about what to do. She is perhaps the cautionary tale, the warning, the admonishment that I'll give her about what not to do, about what happens when you make a bad choice about sex outside of marriage.
If I'm going to try to inspire my daughter about making the right choices, I'm not going to couch that argument to her in the negative with an example like Bristol Palin. Rather, I will point her in the direction of someone who is actually making correct decisions and say, "emulate that". Bristol is now famous by dint of her mistake. If she didn't have a child, if she were not a teen unwed mother, she would not be on Matt Lauer program or any other show. She would simply have been Sarah Palin's daughter and would have gone back to a more normal life once the campaign had ended. So what's the example? Have a baby out of wedlock and get on tv? She's not running for anything, her mom is the politician.
The other absurdity on the right is all of this fawning praise for her making a decision for life. I applaud that as well. I think its wonderful that she chose to have her baby and not abort it. But I'm also irked because the same conservative brethren who sing her praises for choosing life are often among those rhetorically ripping apart unwed mothers in the hood who chose life too. How is it that poor, black women choosing life are denigrated, but the Bristol Palins of the world are held up as an example, though they made the same mistake and the same decision?
Some people make a lot over the flip flop of opinion about abstinence on her part. I really think its irrelevant. She's a teenage girl (growing up very fast now). She's a kid, and a kid mixed up in the grown up world of bloodsport politics. I'm actually somewhat appalled that she's talking on TV at all, because frankly I really don't see what purpose there is for it, other than some damage control for her own personal image. I guess I could see it on that grounds. Certainly not as some part of a platform to support abstinence. Bristol was no supporter of abstinence before her pregnancy. I'm skeptical, given her prior statements, that she is particularly committed to abstinence now. But it doesn't really matter. Bristol is a kid. We knew her story already.
I shake my head everytime I read fawning commentary by conservatives at HotAir and similar online watering holes for cons about how she is such a tremendous example for abstinence, because she is living firsthand with the consequences of going the other way. Can I let you in on a little secret? Bristol Palin is not the example I'm going to set before my lovely nine year old daughter about what to do. She is perhaps the cautionary tale, the warning, the admonishment that I'll give her about what not to do, about what happens when you make a bad choice about sex outside of marriage.
If I'm going to try to inspire my daughter about making the right choices, I'm not going to couch that argument to her in the negative with an example like Bristol Palin. Rather, I will point her in the direction of someone who is actually making correct decisions and say, "emulate that". Bristol is now famous by dint of her mistake. If she didn't have a child, if she were not a teen unwed mother, she would not be on Matt Lauer program or any other show. She would simply have been Sarah Palin's daughter and would have gone back to a more normal life once the campaign had ended. So what's the example? Have a baby out of wedlock and get on tv? She's not running for anything, her mom is the politician.
The other absurdity on the right is all of this fawning praise for her making a decision for life. I applaud that as well. I think its wonderful that she chose to have her baby and not abort it. But I'm also irked because the same conservative brethren who sing her praises for choosing life are often among those rhetorically ripping apart unwed mothers in the hood who chose life too. How is it that poor, black women choosing life are denigrated, but the Bristol Palins of the world are held up as an example, though they made the same mistake and the same decision?
December 19, 2008
Obama: Supernatural
Conservatives and other denizens of the right, among which I count myself, are prone to mocking Obama as "the One", ala Keanu Reeves in the Matrix or something. They call him Obamamessiah and stuff like that.
All I got to say is, don't front. Because Obama has demonstrated his preternatural powers for all, and you better recognize. When did he make this demonstration? During the primaries, he predicted the future with keen accuracy:
Fast forward to the present:
Hillary laughed at the Obamamessiah. Now she does his bidding.
Soooo, mock the "One" at your peril. His powers are real.
All I got to say is, don't front. Because Obama has demonstrated his preternatural powers for all, and you better recognize. When did he make this demonstration? During the primaries, he predicted the future with keen accuracy:
Fast forward to the present:
Hillary laughed at the Obamamessiah. Now she does his bidding.
Soooo, mock the "One" at your peril. His powers are real.
December 4, 2008
Prepare Yourself for Political Apocalypse: Obama is Ineligible to be President
It is quite possible that the United States of America is about to outdo itself in the realm of explosive politics and racial issues. The gentleman pictured at left, Leo Donofrio, a former attorney turned poker player, has become the catalyst for what could be a full blown constitutional crisis that will divide this country for decades to come. The Supreme Court has taken up for consideration in conference Donofrio v. Wells, a suit brought in state court against the Secretary of the State of New Jersey, challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States on the basis that he is not a "natural born" citizen of the United States. It is worth noting that the same lawsuit also alleges that McCain is not a "natural born" citizen, for a somewhat different reason, and therefore also ineligible to stand for election to the Presidency.For the sake of clarity:
- The lawsuit does NOT allege that Obama is not a United States Citizen.
- The lawsuit does NOT allege that Obama was not born in the U.S. in Hawaii in 1961.
"No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
As far as the issues surrounding Obama’s birth certificate are concerned, Denofrio states Obama has not been presented with a legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore has no legal responsibility to produce one.
However, Denofrio says he believes if “Obama is presented with a legal request from a government authority sanctioned to make such request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put the issue behind him forever.
“That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office of president since he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ by the Constitution.”
Broken down to plain everyday language, the lawsuit argues that the term "natural born" citizen essentially means not merely someone who is a citizen, or even someone who was born in the United States, but a citizen born to two citizen parents in the United States.
If SCOTUS concludes that the above is the operative definition, then Obama is not eligible to be President because he was born of parents who were not both citizens of the United States. According to Factcheck. Org:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
The Donofrio lawsuit alleges therefore that Obama's dual citizenship status at birth means he does not fit the meaning of the term "natural born" citizen and is therefore disqualified from eligibility for election to the office of the President.
Positively diabolical isn't it? Under this interpretation, Obama could have been born on the mall in Washington D.C. in front of Jesus and ten million witnesses and he would not be eligible to be President, by virtue of his dual citizenship at birth. The typical everyman/everywoman on the street has always figured that if you are born on US soil, you are a natural born citizen and can be President. Turns out, not so much. The average person on the street that voted for Obama, and I'll bet some that didn't are gonna say, thats a technicality. You're going to blow up the entire election on a technicality.
As if that was not explosive enough, Clarence Thomas may very well have played what will become an absolutely infamous role in this drama. Cobb, given that the issue at stake is the presidency itself, actually manages to understate this today:
What has he done? Donofrio’s first application was denied by Justice David Souter on Nov. 6. The rules of the court, however, allow for a renewed submission to a justice of the petitioner’s choice. Who answered the call? Justice Thomas referred the case to the full Court on November 19, and then the full Court distributed it for conference tomorrow, December 5, 2008, after an initial consideration on the Thomas referral. The full Supreme Court will meet in conference on the suit to determine whether or not they will take up the case or decline to hear it.
Our prediction: if SCOTUS decides to take up this case, they will ultimately agree with the plaintiff's interpretation and construe the Constitution to state that Obama is not a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, rendering him ineligible for election to the office of the President. At that point, several species of Hell are going to break loose.
I am almost incapable of imagining the scope of the civil and political fallout from such an action by SCOTUS to render null and void the will of 52 million voters who cast their vote for Barack Obama. This case is nuclear and has just gone to DEFCON 2.
What happens if SCOTUS decides against Obama, as best I can tell at the moment, will be determined in part by the timing of any such decision. Bear in mind that despite the manner in which Obama is addressed, technically he is NOT YET the President Elect. He does not officially become the President Elect until December 15th, when the Electoral College meets to certify the electors of each state.
There are two potential scenarios to consider:
- Barack Obama is ruled to be ineligible for President before the Electoral College votes on December 15
- Barack Obama is ruled to be ineligible for President after December 15 but before the inauguration
Candidates for POTUS are chosen by the two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, which are private organizations.
The Right Side of Life saved me some research:
Democrat
Per the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention (As Adopted by the Democratic National Committe, February 2, 2007), VIII. PROCEDURAL RULES OF THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION, Paragraph G:
Filling a Vacancy on the National Ticket: In the event of death, resignation or disability of a nominee of the Party for President or Vice President after the adjournment of the National Convention, the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee shall confer with the Democratic leadership of the United States Congress and the Democratic Governors Association and shall report to the Democratic National Committee, which is authorized to fill the vacancy or vacancies.
Republican
Per The National Republican Committee Rules, RULE NO. 9, Filling Vacancies in Nominations:
(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.
(b) In voting under this rule, the Republican National Committee members representing any state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.
(c) In the event that the members of the Republican National Committee from any state shall not be in agreement in the casting of votes hereunder, the votes of such state shall be divided equally, including fractional votes, among the members of the Republican National Committee present or voting by proxy.
(d) No candidate shall be chosen to fill any such vacancy except upon receiving a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the election.
If Barack Obama is ruled to be ineligible for President before the Electoral College votes on December 15?
The above party rules would apply and the Electoral College would vote based on what their respective party decides as well as the Electoral College Process. Essentially the party would decide who the candidate would be. Presumably, they would elevate Joe Biden and he would select a running mate, though it would be such an unprecedented moment in history that anything might happen.
If Barack Obama is ruled to be ineligible for President after December 15 but before the inauguration?
It seems to me that the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution would then control the situation. The Twentieth Amendment provides,
“if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or in the manner in which one who is to act shall be elected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
In this scenario, Joe Biden becomes the President, as he is not handicapped by this issue of his status as a "natural born" citizen at birth.Circling back to the several species of Hell that will ensue, it would not be out of the question that there might be civil unrest. Clarence Thomas will become the most reviled black man alive. People will spit on his likeness. If they were going to take Obama down, we'll say, Thomas didn't have to be the one to hand overThe One. He will be the 2nd coming of Judas, the successor to Brutus for the rest of his life. Leo Donifrio will find himself branded among the most hateful of men, for all that he sounds like a reasonable enough guy. I imagine that there will be a massive collective gasp of horror and shock planetwide when this historical electoral result is rendered meaningless. The planet is going to recoil from America if SCOTUS renders Obama ineligible. Financial markets around the world will plummet as the US plunges into unprecedented political turmoil and uncertainty. Black Americans will fall into a pit of unrelenting and bitter despair, with our niggling suspicion confirmed that America would find some way to prevent a black man from ascending to the Presidency. We'll also believe that despite the fact the Donifrio's suit seeks to invalidate McCain as well, if McCain had won the election, this suit would not even have been given consideration. The Court's standing and legitimacy will be severely diminished in the eyes of a vast amount of the electorate. Millions of youth and latinos and people everywhere who got involved for the first time, inspired by a campaign for the first time, will become cynical and distrustful and will check out of the political process in disgust.
Prepare yourself for political Apocalypse. Today we are at DEFCON 2. If and when SCOTUS should decide to take up this case, we will go to DEFCON 1. Should SCOTUS conclude that Obama is rendered ineligible as a candidate to stand for election to the Presidency, this country will rip itself apart.
Update: I spoke this morning with Tony Mauro, Supreme Court correspondent for Legal Times, a legal news website that covers SCOTUS. Tony very graciously gave me a few minutes of his time and indicated that he was aware of the Donofrio v. Wells case being scheduled for conference and told me a bit about the procedure. Generally, the conference is held in the morning and if the court decides to take up a case, they will announce that in the afternoon. If they decline to hear a case, the announcement of that is typically not made until the following Monday. Assuming this custom holds, if there is no announcement that the case is being taken up this afternoon, it is therefore likely that the Court decided to decline the case and that decision will be made public on Monday.
November 24, 2008
Parting Thoughts on Palin
I actually buy the premise that Palin was among the best picks available to McCain given what he felt he needed to accomplish, namely consolidating the republican base behind him. Were I Palin, I think I would say to anyone, "hey, I did my job". She revved the base, raised lots of money and helped him close the chasmatic excitement gap.But anybody who is being honest will admit that while Palin had appeal and telegenic, crowd pleasing charisma in spades, she lacked gravitas in equal amounts and the McCain campaign's poor handling of her only compounded the problem. By the time she had some level of sea legs about her, they had already allowed a media narrative to become established that she would not begin to shake until the end days of the campaign, by then far too late.
Further, what her bona fide political skill set is yet I think to really be proven out. Certainly Alaskans deemed her right for the times there and clearly she was a breath of fresh air over the old boys network that has been running Alaska since statehood. She balanced a budget during prosperous times when oil was trading above $100+ a barrel. Now her skills will really be put to the test as she has to manage the state on oil revenue way below her budget projections. How her term plays out in Alaska will clue us in on whether she is ready to run the nation.
For all the talk of her energy chops, we never heard word one of that on the campaign trail beyond the sloganizing. We never got one policy speech on energy to my knowledge. Considering that the McCain camp was billing her as an energy expert, I find it hard to believe they never bothered to deploy her for heavyweight duty on that topic unless the fact was that she could not credibly speak on it.
The McCain campaign clearly blew it in correctly deploying her charisma and base drawing powers against The One, but I think its also the case that she didn't demonstrate that she was very much deeper than the charisma either.
Exit comment: Its been said, fairly, that Palin was no more inexperienced or unready than Obama for the rigors of a national campaign or the responsibility of national service in the White House. Its a good comeback, but here's the thing; we had two years to watch Obama rise to power on a strategy and with a team he crafted and I have to tell you that I don't believe Sarah Palin is capable of doing what Obama has done. She has the potential to be the white, female Obama doppelganger on the right, but I don't think she has it in her. The cool thing about that supposition? We get to test it. She's got four years to build. By 2010, if she is going to be a player, we'll know.
November 4, 2008
It Has Begun
I cast my vote for Barack Obama at 8:10 am this morning, here in Indiana. I arrived at my local polling place at 6:30 am, my three children in tow. After waiting in line, I showed my ID and stepped up to the voting booth where the electronic voting machine waited for me to make what I hope will be a history making choice for change.I let my oldest son, Noah, press the button for Obama, to participate in this moment. I snapped a picture of my vote, to record it for posterity, whatever the outcome.
After 2+ years, this campaign is coming to its fateful conclusion. The nation, indeed the world, will wait with great anticipation for the decision of the American people as we confront war abroad and economic crisis at home.
George Bush's presidency was challenged early by the most catastrophic attack on the US homeland since Pearl Harbor, arguably more so as the WTC was a civilian target, not a military one. While the methodology of this administration taken as a whole to address the threat of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network can be questioned on tactical, strategic and even moral grounds, one core measure of its effectiveness is clear: the US homeland has not been struck again since 911. Further, it is clear at this point that the capability of Al-Qaeda to carry out a strategic strike on the US homeland has been destroyed. George Bush has kept America safe since 911, and he has largly eliminated the danger of another high level attack on US soil. He leaves office having faithfully discharged his responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States.
The protection of the United States has come at a cost. Expansion of government surveillance power, diminished moral authority among other nations, a damaged economy, a trillion dollar deficit, continued energy dependence, Washington gridlock and the loss of over 5,000 of America's finest men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, with over 30,000 wounded. Add to that the numbers of dead and wounded civilians in those countries and the lives forever altered, and the cost in blood and treasure to America alone is staggering.
History will be the continuing judge as to whether the price we have paid and continue to pay for the decisions made by this administration were justified. My judgement is that this republican administration has protected the United States from attack from without, but has sacrificed our strength within to do so. The republican party, in its current form, is not worthy of another term of control of the White House. Conservative values and the policy initiatives that spring from them are superior on many subject areas in comparison to liberal approaches. Republicans have failed to communicate or implement effectively these ideas. We have been corrupted and seduced by power for its own sake and failed to do the people's business as we should. It is proper that there is accountability for that. I did not much care for Gore and with Kerry I did not think there was value to switching horses in the middle of a war. But eight years later, we are militarily overstretched, geopolitically vulnerable, economically fragile and wracked by cultural and ideological division within the body politic.
I voted for Bush twice. I am a reluctant republican and a moderate conservative, but John McCain did not earn my vote. I believe him to be an honorable man. His service in Vietnam and subsequently in our armed forces is laudable. Above all, I have a lot of regard for his consistent championing of the issue of fiscal responsibility and for reforms in areas such as campaign finance. Even if you did not agree with his approach, you can respect the reformist impulse that motivated him.
But reformer or not, he is a republican and part of his party. The case he needed to make for me was that he would be a different republican, less bound by the strictures of idealogy, more flexible and inclusive. Perhaps he is, but that was not the message of his campaign. The negative campaigning, the selection of Palin to pander to the party's evangelical & cultural base, disregarding her lack of readiness to be president if callled upon. Palin is a competent politician, and I'm sure that the judgement of Alaskans was correct in electing her, but she was called up for the majors too soon and mishandled. He did not render himself as distinct or different in type from Bush in the pursuit of his economic or foreign policy. He was more than willing to embrace a campaign vocabularly of division, pushing a narrative of who is American and who is not and using the racial undertones present in the electorate to fuel criticism of his opponent. In the battle of policy ideas, he was perhaps ill suited to make the sale on the crucial issues of the economy beyond the ideological mantra of lowering taxes and when he did, it was to tack clumsily to the left with big government ideas that were clearly reactionary. In the end, for me, his campaign fell short of the biography that inspired it.
So today, Obama is my choice. I believe he will win. He is a risk. We cannot truly know if the potential for greatness in him will be realized at a time of great trial for our nation. Should the electorate vote to make him President, it would reflect a decision to reach a little further, dream a little bigger and take a bet on our own future. Despite the doom and gloom espoused by his detractors, the fact is that America will survive Obama as it has survived presidents good and bad before. So today, as we perhaps usher in a historic selection of the first black American to the Presidency, let his prayer at the Wailing Wall be our prayer as well.
"Lord -- Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."
October 30, 2008
Qoute of the Day..........
The Economist endorses Barack Obama for President:"A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right."
October 28, 2008
Sigh.....
Hat tip Stormin's Morning JavaMeet Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, who has confirmed that she OK’d the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher following the Oct. 15 presidential debate.
This makes my butt hurt on two fronts: 1. What made this woman think it was at all appropriate to delve into Joe the Plumbers' private information because he happened to get himself on tv with her preferred candidate (she is a max Obama donor)? It goes without saying that if Joe had been an Obama supporter, she would not have done this. 2. Her actions only give fuel to a paranoid "fear of a black planet" undertone in the campaign and supports the most irrational and ugly accusations of a black fascist state to come should Obama win the presidency. Her actions help poison the post election atmosphere as badly as any nutjobs on the right.
No One Said A Word
Here is what is very troubling, very disturbing to me. The shouted racial slur heard on the tape when you listen to it is pretty clear. I don't know if Sarah Palin heard it. If she did and ignored it, that's pretty deplorable behavior on her part not to call that out. I'll assume she did not hear it. But given that I can hear it on the tape very well, that means that a multitude of people at that rally were able to hear it very well. I've seen and listened to many a rally where some heckler in the crowd shouts out to interrupt the candidates and they are shouted down with chants of USA, USA! But here, dead silence. No response from this crowd whatsoever, or at least no response that one can discern. Maybe the shouter was escorted out. But somehow I doubt it, given that there is not a single reaction or peep to this obvious racist name calling. That lack of reaction is deplorable and shameful in a situation that has zero ambiguity.
Update: 8:20 pm - Gadfly in Residence Phelps says I'm all wet, that this didn't happen. That either I don't hear what I think I hear or this is doctored stuff. Either way, I'm not invested in talking about a lie. Who's got the straight dope?
Update: 8:20 pm - Gadfly in Residence Phelps says I'm all wet, that this didn't happen. That either I don't hear what I think I hear or this is doctored stuff. Either way, I'm not invested in talking about a lie. Who's got the straight dope?
October 20, 2008
It Takes 4 Sec. States to = 1 Colin Powell
John McCain on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:
WALLACE: Senator, on another Sunday talk show, General Colin Powell has just said that he's going to vote for Barack Obama. He says he meets the standard of being a successful president. He says that Senator McCain is unsure about how to deal with the economy, and he does not feel that Sarah Palin is ready to be commander in chief. Your reaction?
MCCAIN: Well, I've always admired and respected General Powell. We're longtime friends. This doesn't come as a surprise. But I'm also very pleased to have the endorsement of four former secretaries of state, Secretaries Kissinger, Baker, Eagleburger and Haig.
October 17, 2008
Obama v. McCain Round III Reflections
McCain lost this debate decisively, and for the first time, I think Obama clearly won it. Debate #1, Obama held his own, got it called a draw and that equated to a win. Debate #2, a shaky performance but no lost ground, again ruled a draw and equates to a win in effect for Obama. This time, he actually won the debate.
Why did he win? Because he for the most part gave coherent answers that would appeal to moderates and independents, as well as his democratic base.
McCain the entire night delivered attacks against Obama that are red meat for the conservative base, but will not snag independents and moderates. All night long, I felt like he was talking in base shorthand.
I actually thought Obama was baiting him, enticing him to bring the Ayers attack, which McCain took forever to get to even when the moderator offered up the opportunity with his opening question. When he finally did get to it, it was clumsily executed, as were many of the hits.
People want to hear the parameters of the candidates policies, not just the ideological engine that drives them. McCain’s centerpiece on education for example; Vouchers, a reasonable enough and reliable tried and true republican, conservative idea on addressing failing public school systems. In my own opinion, its a half measure, and the truly effective, conservative policy approach was actually championed by….Obama! in the form of charter schools (competition, accountability). McCain tossed them out as an aside, Obama elaborated on that a bit. On healthcare, Obama spent more time explaining McCain’s plan than McCain did.
On many points, McCain enthusiastically extolled the conservative ideological point of view, but almost always expressed in base shorthand, easily understandable to the likes of conservatives, but not nearly explanatory enough for moderates and independents who are not of the same bent and want some elaboration.
The “I’m not Bush” line was great. Too little, and way too late. The Ayers and Acorn attacks, delivered in base shorthand, no detail, no narrative, clumsy, lacked impact (for the base, moments to cheer maybe, but not for anybody else).
Demeanor wise, McCain seemed agitated and tight and once or twice annoyingly snarky. Obama seemed calm, loose, prepared and was not shaken much out of that the whole night.
While McCain had more energy in this debate, he communicated in way too much base shorthand and he devoted too much time to attack angles that don’t net independents and moderates. When he was not making that mistake, he was at several points totally squandering attack lines or pivoting from one subject to the attack in very clumsy ways that robbed several attacks of their force and made him appear, dare I say it…wait for it, wait….erratic.
Another dynamic which I don’t think helps him in how he comes across is that he doesn’t like Obama and believes him to be an upstart, untested pup and poseur who has the audacity to offer himself in opposition to McCain as though he were an equal (I suspect Hillary felt the same). That feeling is there and it colors the way McCain debates Obama and causes him to be dismissive of Obama’s rebuttals in a shorthand way, instead of absorbing them and then systematically dismantling his arguments. He doesn’t think he should have to. The problem is, he does, because the base accepts the shorthand explanations, moderates and independents don’t and he can’t win with the base alone.
A better performance for McCain. Problem was, Obama brought his best debate game tonight and if Obama’s lackluster performance in debates #1 and #2 were regarded as Obama wins based on the polling afterwards, I predict this one will poll as an Obama blowout over the next several days.
October 15, 2008
October 9, 2008
Texas Supreme Court Covers McCain's Flank
Hat Tip Freedom Files
"....t Bob Barr has sued Texas to get John McCain and Barack Obama taken off the ballot. You see, according to Texas election code, they needed to file by August 25th. Well, the verdict is in, and the court has rejected Mr Barr's lawsuit.
This is the entire summation of their decision:
"....t Bob Barr has sued Texas to get John McCain and Barack Obama taken off the ballot. You see, according to Texas election code, they needed to file by August 25th. Well, the verdict is in, and the court has rejected Mr Barr's lawsuit.
This is the entire summation of their decision:
That's it. No explanation. Just denied.THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
Orders Pronounced September 23, 2008
MISCELLANEOUS
THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS DENIED:
08-0761 IN RE BOB BARR, WAYNE ALLEN ROOT, AND THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF TEXAS
October 8, 2008
Yeah, He Said It
Obama's reply during Charlie Gibson's interview when asked about the fact that McCain didn't mention Ayers during the debate“[H]e wasn’t willing to say it to my face”
Brother On the Other Side
Hat tip Dirty Harry's Place
This was a fun and well delivered piece of rhetoric for the McCain/Palin ticket. Harry said he would vote for Palin-This Guy 08. I think I would reverse the order. He makes a good argument or two for the conservative viewpoint. I'm a conservative myself, so I enjoy hearing the case made. However, its major drawback is that it lacks authenticity in articulating the case for conservatism within the black community from our perspective. When you articulate the case for conservatism in the same tone of scorn and derision used by conservatives pursuing political advantage rather than positive outcomes in our community, you lose credibility with me.
His arguments about planned parenthood for example, while correct in their irony, are the same arguments served up by conservatives who will not contribute anything to the discussion about re-entry or justice system reforms while they pursue voter suppression strategies to beat back the exercise of black voting power. I'm all for arguing the conservative case because I am one, but I have very little patience for people who espouse conservative principles and their superiority for the black community (which is true) but turn a blind eye to conservative efforts to gain power using the black community as its foil.
This was a fun and well delivered piece of rhetoric for the McCain/Palin ticket. Harry said he would vote for Palin-This Guy 08. I think I would reverse the order. He makes a good argument or two for the conservative viewpoint. I'm a conservative myself, so I enjoy hearing the case made. However, its major drawback is that it lacks authenticity in articulating the case for conservatism within the black community from our perspective. When you articulate the case for conservatism in the same tone of scorn and derision used by conservatives pursuing political advantage rather than positive outcomes in our community, you lose credibility with me.
His arguments about planned parenthood for example, while correct in their irony, are the same arguments served up by conservatives who will not contribute anything to the discussion about re-entry or justice system reforms while they pursue voter suppression strategies to beat back the exercise of black voting power. I'm all for arguing the conservative case because I am one, but I have very little patience for people who espouse conservative principles and their superiority for the black community (which is true) but turn a blind eye to conservative efforts to gain power using the black community as its foil.
October 7, 2008
Our Take on the Debate: Nothing Changes
The format was a kludgey hybrid that was constraining. Brokaw completely sucked as a moderator. I mean you don't need to let him moderate anything else. He asked more questions than the voters did, and his questions were largely stupid. I didn’t really think Obama won so much as he didn’t lose. I thought Obama was better on foreign policy than on the domestic issues in this debate and in the first and I found him a mad muddle and mishmash talking about domestic policy. He had some real passion on foreign policy and was much more coherent on that point. He was scattered and unfocused on domestic issues and failed to concisely make his point. They should have someone in debate prep wire him up and shock him every time he does not answer a question succinctly. The hot little number I call Mrs. Political Season left the room to go watch something else on TV because it was a snoozer, but she thought McCain made his answers with more clarity and I had to agree that Obama had great difficulty being anything close to succinct most of the time.
McCain and Obama both were off base on Georgia and Russia. We are most certainly headed for another cold war and the idea of Georgia in NATO is ridiculous. NATO is a decrepit military alliance and the EU is not going to pay the price to change that. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq mean we don’t have the resources to project force into that region in a meaningful way and we won’t have the support of Germany, where they have decided they will not be caught between the West and Russia in another cold war conflict.
McCain didn’t score a major hit or get a gamechanger moment, so he didn’t win it. But he didn’t lose it either. All in all, I think nothing changes from this, and the McCain campaign will have to rely on the fear and smear strategy to break and potentially reverse Obama’s momentum.
Exit comment: Its a punk move to have your running mate and every surrogate you claim calling out Obama as a terrorist sympathizer in the media and on the stump every day, but you don’t have the balls to bring that in the debate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)