The President making a speech to school children does not bother me. What continues to astound is three fold:
1. Obama's handlers are inept. The original "lesson plan" to go along with the speech, like the creepy "POTUS" seal before he even had the nomination, seems to reflect an ongoing unnerving and cultish atmosphere in the White House. The original plans suggested that students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." After the outcry it was changed to "Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."
Here's the rub: no one in the room while this plan was written stopped and said "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." might be a problem. Just as no one had the sense to stop the design of the fake Presidential seal before it was unveiled to a repelled nation. This is politics 101. There are gross assumptions in the statement "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." Did White House aides truly see no problem with it? Did they not notice that 48 percent of the population did not vote for him? Did they not see any television news this summer? Are they so unconscious of the country at large that NO ONE thought to rewrite before the storm erupted?
2. Obama's team is still being lapped by the Right. Any moderately intelligent low level White House hack should have seen the blow back coming. Yet, they apparently did not. Knowing that Rush L and the rest would raise holy hell about Obama making a speech to a captive audience of students is as easy as knowing the sun will rise on Tuesday. But they were STILL caught off guard. Wow. Who, I ask seriously, is running the show?
3. As is now the norm - the limp and predictable response from liberal commentators has been about race "Obama is being excoriated because he's black." Even if there is some truth in this - and there is very little - nothing in American life today loses an argument more quickly than the race card. People simply stop listening. The Left needs to stop injecting race at every opportunity. It's tired and useless. Of course, after the indefensible and creepy lesson plan - that the White house quickly scrubbed - there was little else to use except the race card.
The argument that Obama is seen as the "other" has some weight - but it has little to do with race. Obama has weakness here for one straightforward reason: He ran as everything to everybody andwas not vetted. He ran from above and questionsabout his past were shoved aside with the ever handy race card. Digging into his past was considered the realm of nuts. We've never elected a president that so many people knew so little about. Guess what, if no one knows your particulars you will be seen as the Other. That fact is as old as human communities themselves. Large portions of his Obama's past have still not been vetted. We weren't asked to believe in Obama so much as we were commanded to assume he was A-Okay.
Had Obama been put through the ringer and still won the election it would be easier to chock some of the more strident criticism of the school speech up to white fear of black power. Because of the way the primaries were handled, and the way the stimulus was handled, and the bailouts, and the fake presidential seal, and the stunt crowds, and the Berlin speech and...and...and... there is a deep and gnawing sense among many that this man is trying to get away with something. It cannot all be written off as Right wing blather. Or fear of his dark features.
I resent Bill Maher calling the entire country stupid - mostly because he's never seemed that smart to me. He's harsh and smug - in our current culture this is often mistaken for smart.
But I must admit that the Obama's "beer summit" and the attendant coverage of it is causing me absolute embarrassment as an American. Obama's response to the entire Gatesgate episode is embarrassing and pathetic. During the "beer summit" the most powerful man on earth and his pal - who was arrested for being an overbearing gasbag - used a hard working police officer as a prop. Crowley was put in an untenable position so Barry can save his half white ass. Pew now reports that Obama's knee jerk response to the arrest is doing real damage.
It is gross - and like few other events of late - indicate a kind of cultural idiocy, not emanating from the grass roots - but from the top. This is Jerry Springer Show filler brought into the Rose Garden by a thoughtless President who refused to simply say "I was wrong to condemn the police. I am sorry. I'll be more careful with my remarks regarding local issues in the future." That's it. This entire dog and pony show has been because Obama had a knee jerk response to something he knew nothing about and isn't man enough to say "I am sorry."
Obama wants to "foster" a dialogue - ABOUT WHAT?!!! How cops should handle arrogant, entitled, ivy league professors when they insult your mother? What is the "dialogue" that is to emerge from this episode? ALL the facts that have emerged so far indicate that Obama, and earlier Gates, WERE IN THE WRONG. Now reality has to be adjusted so some grievance king from Harvard and his POTUS pal can save face? Screw that.
And for "f**k sake - where is the woman who made the 9-1-1 call? You know the person who actually DID HER DUTY AS A CITIZEN. What is the lesson here? Behave like an idiot and the President will defend you and invite you to the White House - leveling the playing field by also inviting the cop who was berated in front of the planet for doing his job well - meanwhile if you are a concerned citizen reporting what looks for all the world like a break in - you get called a racist by the teaming masses of mindless, perpetual victims- and ignored by the "post -racial" President.
Clip: Check out this video called Mr. Jefferson. I can't quite bring myself to post it because it ends with some Reagan adulation which I cannot abide. Regular reader Roberta, who is holding down the fort in Ohio, forwarded it. We both agree it is good until the Reagan bit. Thanks Roberta.
Fiddlin:This post over at Zombie's place is a few weeks old (I am lame with the schedule a bit too often...so sorry) but it is still a good one. He's around here a lot and always willing to knock some heads - a quality I admire in blog land (though not so much in public). He is to the Right of me on most things - like many of the most consistent commenters here (libs, speak up!) - but I like having an audience in unexpected places.... Thanks Zombie - who like Bill C, is from Arkansas.
T from SFO: T from the San Francico Bay Area sent me this piece about race from a conservative sight. Thanks T! It is a good read. As always, if YOU have anything to say about race and want it posted here I am at john@liberalrapture.com. In my estimation, we are at an impasse in the conversation because the Left is not saying anything to advance it. Conservatives, moderates and ex Dem PUMA types are breaking new ground by discussing the use of word "racist" as a scarlet letter to silence people. This is not the whole enchilada, but it is important. I have not seen or received any thing to rebut this. Or anything on the Left other than boilerplate whining and rehashed resentment-ology. I most certainly would like to see liberals break some new ground in this conversation.
Trey And Matt, I lubs you berry berry much. The always on it Kara, of Wyoming, knowing of my recent dalliance with libertarianism and my passionate love affair with South Park posted this interview with the South Park creators in the comments earlier. GAWD, I love these 2 men. It's embar us in.
Music: Stand by Me. A wonderful and moving version sent by Topher down Louisiana way... where you been , brother??? No comments in so long!!?? Love this version of this song - Thanks topher!
Otis Redding said it best: "Oh she may be weary, and young girls, they do get weary..."
I ended the lyric there because the issue I am weary of is not that I am "wearing that same ol, shaggy dress"...What I am weary of is having another "conversation" about race. Don't get me wrong, I love a good conversation. I live for those conversations when all cylinders are firing and you and those you are talking to are open to each other. Few things are as satisfying as a great conversation.
A crucial part to any conversation is listening. I know, it sounds cliche and obvious, but we need to listen rather than wait for our turn to talk.
This brings me to my growing reluctance to talk about race.I am weary because it seems the conversation is not a conversation at all. I am tired of the canned speeches and lectures that end any real discussion. How can you have a conversation when the term racist is thrown around so carelessly? How can you talk about race when you cannot really share your opinions?
"Conversations" on race often end up being history lessons on the horrors and injustices that many Blacks, Latino's and non-Caucasians have gone through. I know the history, but is a recounting of the past really a conversation? I wonder what our goals are in these conversations about race that we are encouraged to have. I used to participate in such "conversations" during college with enthusiasm. I was a leader on campus, and I fought for women's rights and was campus student government leader (AKA nerd).
A student brought it to my attention that The Diversity and Tolerance Board was collecting signatures to try and have a Rush Limbaugh wanna-be journalist at the college paper removed. He wrote stupid columns and the most recent one offended many Native Americans. He insinuated that all Native Americans liked to drink to excess. This column came out during Native American Celebration Week.
The column was offensive and dumb.
However, many of us felt trying to censor the columnist was wrong, so myself, a black student, and a Pakistani student attended the next meeting to express our support for the First Amendment. We argued that addressing the columnist's opinions would be more powerful than suppressing the columnist. Further, the paper said it would not fire the journalist just because some of his articles were offensive to some. Even though my activist friends said the same thing to the board that I did, the members, mostly white male Liberal Professors, zeroed in on me.
To put it lightly, I was told that my whiteness basically made me an idiot when it came to anything dealing with "diversity." I was told that I could "walk around, feeling safe because of my white privilege." (Never mind that I am a woman.)They roasted me. My friends defended me, and I defended myself, but the lesson was learned. If I can go to a "Diversity and Tolerance Board" and get roasted for merely speaking up for the First Amendment, why should I bother touching an even more reactive topic like race? If you cannot be honest and share your feelings without being lectured and belittled, why participate?
I bet Eric Holder would think I am a coward. Maybe he is right.
If there is one thing I learned in the 2008 Presidential election cycle it is that each generation thinks they are the first and only generation that are truly post-racial, anti-discrimination, and totally and completely without prejudice and further, that their elders and all previous generations are racists.
Obama's youthful supporters think they are morally superior to current and past generations because they are not racist. And they prove that by constantly calling just about everyone else a racist. Obama's youth believe that they are the only generation to deal with race, racism, and discrimination in this country, ever.
I don't know what schools are teaching these days, but based on the inaccuracies spouted by many, it certainly is not the real history of the fight for racial equality in this country.
As I wrote in Moving On, While Not Forgetting, America's racial history and movement toward equality for all, "has been slow, plodding, and imperfect."
But a history DOES exist. Even before the American Revolution, Rhode Island banned the import of slaves, and by 1786 all of the colonies except Georgia at least limited the import of slaves.
In 1787 the Northwest Ordinance banned expansion of slavery north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River. Following the American Revolution many states banned slavery and freed blacks. Many individuals wrote anti-slavery publications and in 1833 William Lloyd Garrison founded The American Anti-Slavery Society. Between 1833 and 1852, when Uncle Tom's Cabin was published, there were many people discussing and working to end slavery and discrimination.
Moving into modern history FDR, HST, DDE, JFK & RFK, and LBJ all discussed race relations with the American people and worked to pass civil rights legislation, and the courts concurred with these landmark pieces of legislation. A lot of civil and uncivil discussions about race occurred during this time period.
In the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950's and the 1960's many whites marched along side blacks, especially white religious leaders. Many were beaten, shed blood and or died for that cause. In the summer of 1964 three white activists working in Mississippi, Andrew Goodman, James Cheney, and Michael Schwerner were murdered for registering black people to vote.
Many American citizens have been discussing inequalities, listening to black people, and working to achieve racial equality throughout all of our history. I don't want to write a comprehensive history lesson here, I am only trying to illustrate that there has always been ongoing discussions of race relations in this country. Every generation in America has dealt with and held discussions about and have listened to, as Matt so poignantly writes "...black people's view of race..."
When I first began teaching in the late sixties and in the early seventies, and as my school district moved to integrate first the staff and then the schools themselves I was part of many discussion groups where blacks and whites shared histories and visions for the future. We shared cultural values and norms. I was a member of my church's committee on racial equality and was their representative to my city's committee on racial equality. Again, I both discussed and listened to..."black people's view of race..."
But now I have to ask, what is the point? Do you want me to do more listening? Why? Why do I have to listen to and participate in more discussion? I am not into self-flagellation for the past sins of others just for the sake of discussion. Haven't we moved beyond the talking about race stage? And if we haven't moved beyond the talking phase, why haven't we?
Shouldn't we move to another or different level on the race issue? I thought I had. I live in a multi-cultural neighborhood. I like and want that. The nation just elected its first black President. We have come a long way in just my brief lifetime. I saw a cross burning on the block I lived on at age six, and today we have a black President. I daresay a lot of discussion has taken place to get to this point in history.
What else am I supposed to do?
When do we move beyond race and racial grievances? When do we move above it all?
Are we afraid to move beyond just discussing, "people's views of race"? Are we afraid to go beyond racial grievances? Are we afraid to talk about poor education? Are we really afraid to talk about high crime rates? Do we continue to ignore low aspirations?
If he were a leader, and if he really cared for black people, Obama himself could have moved the discussion beyond the racist and victim meme to a higher plane. To say I am disappointed he did not is an understatement and contributed to why I could not vote for him. He used racism as a cheap political ploy.
So now I have to ask: Isn't it time for a new agenda? Isn't it time to move to a higher plane?
Someone please explain, discuss, and answer those questions.
Just read your "Better things to do" (From Feb 22) post. I guess it's assumed that Holder was directing his comments at whites only...I didn't hear the rest of his comments so I'm not sure. I think lots of people of different races are afraid to talk about race and end up falling back into easy, rehearsed answers. In that sense, I think Americans can be cowardly on the issue of race.
But assuming Holder directed his comments only to whites, my own experiences lead me to different conclusions than your own. I've been lucky enough to have lots of interesting (to me, anyway) discussions about race with black people. Of course there are times when I feel that black folk quickly dismiss certain arguments as racist. But people of all races quickly assume the worst of their "opponent" in discussions about anything. It's not easy to have a really thoughtful discussion about anything, including race.
In any discussion where people are "attached to the problem," unless the people involved have some kind of trust and affection for each other, both sides will tend to assume the worst of someone who disagrees with them. Just look at the whole Clinton-Obama race. Obama supporters too often dismissed critics as racist, but Clinton supporters too often dismissed Obama supporters as sexist. Human beings are quick to find bias against their cause, beliefs, candidate, etc. That's honestly why I have found it difficult to read your posts. Your own tone is, at times, awfully similar to the kind of bitterness coming from Holder. Or at least that's how I've felt when reading some of your posts. In the Holder post you complain that most discussions about race are not conversations, but you seem so settled in your own views that you might be just as much part of the problem. That's why I liked when you wrote, " Maybe I'm wrong. Let's talk about it." Maybe that kind of humility is present in many of your posts, but I don't remember seeing it much.
Don't you think queer folk can be as quick to judge straight people as blacks are to judge whites? Whenever people feel intensely oppressed, it's hard to have a nice, quiet debate. My own experiences in places like Watts, Harlem, and Baltimore help me understand why black folk are pretty pissed off about some things. My own experiences as a gay man help me to understand why queer folk are pissed off. Of course thoughtful whites are not as attached to the problem of race as many blacks are...just like thoughtful straight people are not as attached to the problem of sexual orientation as queers are. The issue simply doesn't cause that fire in the belly that it does for people intimately affected by the issue.
As a white guy, I think there is real value in listening to black people's view of race more than chiming in with my own view. That doesn't mean that I'm silent in a conversation about race. I get mad and raise my voice and challenge people's assumptions. But hopefully I only do that after really listening and allowing others to get mad, challenge me, and raise their voice at me.
Cowards? Are we cowards about race? I am cowardly about some things in my daily life. Race is not one of them. I would LOVE to talk about race. A lot. For extended periods.
The trouble - from my white male perspective - is that whenever a conversation about race is initiated it ends up being, in fact, not a conversation about race at all. Thoughtful people who do not tow a party line by spewing a litany of victimology bromides are quickly slapped down as "racist". This ends the conversation. There is a deep, deep attachment to the problem and very little intelligence directed toward a solution. Brutal truth: My experience tells me it is not thoughtful whites who are attached to the problem. Maybe I am wrong. Let's talk about that.
Holder called us "cowards" which is not exactly an invitation to speak freely. Nor was the relentless double think of the Obama Pods last year.
It is amazing and important to have a biracial candidate - but IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT HIM YOU MUST NOT DISCUSS RACE AND YOU MUST BE A RACIST.
Deny it all you want. That is what happened last year. Openly. Smaller states that went for Clinton were full of "racists". There were South Carolina Obama rallies with thousands screaming "race doesn't matter." Except, of course, if Geraldine Ferraro voices her opinion. Then it matters - oh boy - does it matter. Can we talk about that? The Obama campaign's sneaky and vile attacks on the Clintons as racist is another example. Can we talk about that? Or how about the ongoing, secretive, relationship he has with Phleger - a man whose racism was, literally, put on a pedestal and blasted across Obama's church. Can we talk about that? Or Obama's embrace, then dismissal of Wright? Can we talk about that? Can I really say what I think about Jackson and Sharpton without being bullied and trashed like Ferraro? Can I say out loud that I do, in fact, see a deep corrupting influence in the Black "leadership" AND at the same time that I try diligently to comprehend the pain of the history of race in this country? As a white man am I allowed this?
Sure doesn't seem like it.
This "race conversation meme" is rightfully interpreted by many whites as "We talk. You listen" Why is it that the only whites that are given the megaphone are either blatant racists or 60s liberal apologists? There are other views.There are those of us who would like to have a real conversation in which EVERYONE is allowed to talk.
Here's a little truth I don't think gets spoken enough: Non racist Whites do not care about race to the same degree that Blacks do. (Racists of any color do care about race a great deal.) Since this is, by no fault of my own, not as pressing an issue for me as it is for some, I am left with having to make an effort. But the effort is never rewarded, and frankly, it is not pleasant being bulldozed into the stereotype chair whenever a view that might confront the real problem is introduced. It is not cowardice, Mr. Holder, it is annoyance and exhaustion.
Don't tell me we must "have a conversation about race" when you mean "let me talk about how badly Blacks have been treated." That is a different - though potentially valuable - talk.
In 2009, with the economy caving, the BRUTAL TRUTH is: this alleged conversation about race does not include me and so...wait for it...I don't care. Why don't I care? I feel no white guilt. I did. But I don't anymore. I got tired of it. It got me nowhere and, in the end was counter productive. Tough, but true.
Here is the real "conversation about race" I'd like to have: Black anger and frustration, and White guilt exhaustion. If "both sides" can talk as adults about this we'd make some progress.
Calling me a coward doesn't even make me angry. It is worse than that. It makes me shut people like Holder out. Or off - as the case may be. Feel free to jabber on about what a victim you are and what a coward I am. I have much more pressing things to attend to.
This post states the case more clearly than I have time to that BHO's win was NOT a landslide.
Obama managed to move the needle far enough to gain a solid victory, but there is little evidence of any permanent effect. In fact, given the daunting array of factors working against McCain - an unpopular incumbent, an unpopular war, a declining economy, a financial crisis, a charismatic opponent, his own advanced age, and being outspent 2:1 -- his performance says more about the strength of conservatism than its weakness.
I believe the election was very much a MANDATE for the government to get its sh*t together. By historical standards there was no landslide - or even a realignment. Obama flipped some states that were close to flipping or go back and forth.
Bush has ruined conservatism for a season or two - but it will be back.
Obama must appear competent as the chief executive at all times - or the backlash will be swift. And it will have elements of racism. After a year of race bating by Obama- the irony is that one of the places race remains a factor in American life is in standards of performance. Whites are still given more room to screw up than blacks. Blacks in power tend to be held to a higher standard than whites. This remaining racism is also evident at the opposite end of the societal spectrum: black killers get the death penalty at a much higher rate than white killers.
Racism is still very much alive - and conscientious liberals will have to work much harder to perceive what is real racism and what is Obama Machine race baiting.
I am going out on a limb here and posting the thread from the post below as a post itself.
70% of black Californians voted FOR prop 8 - which is as close to a "Jim Crow" proposition that we've seen in California since the 60's. Many interesting points are made by readers - and there is genuine fury and pain. Nothing about the election last night surprised me except this stat: 70% of blacks voted to rescind a basic right for millions of people. Here in lies the ultimate danger of politics based on identity and not values. Gay people must now stomach that the majority of AAs oppose their rights. I am not being too cute by half cute or racist here. I am reflecting facts. If those who have felt the brunt of discrimination most severely had responded by helping others up the ladder - Prop 8 would have failed. Hispanics voted yes by a bare majority. Other major groups voted no. Even if AAs had split Prop 8 would have failed.
The signal to gays is "You're on your own." Gay men and women deserve better from those who should understand the most. I am not stunned that it passed. I am horrified that Prop 8 won by a landslide in black community.
Think I am picking a scab? You are right. An infected scab. Think I am racist? Go to hell. The word itself is now meaningless thanks to Mr. Obama. Facts are facts. Further, I firmly believe the misogyny of the Obama campaign has EVERYTHING to do with this result. Hatred of women and hatred of gays are kissing cousins. 10 steps forward on racism...20 steps back on gay rights and women's rights...
The comments:
I'm speechless right now, trying to adjust to this fact.
People who have been the victim of bigotry and rallied against it voted to write discrimination into a state's constitution.
The deep ignorance of these people is astonishing to me, and I'm trying to figure out how to understand it.
I'm glad I made my 'congratulations' calls to my black friends last night, before hearing this result. Jay in (not of) L.A. | Homepage | 11.05.08 - 12:22 pm | #
That's sad.
I'm afraid people are going to be in for some more surprises as this country swings further away from progressive causes. I hate to say it, but I see an increase coming in both homophobia and misogyny.
On the other hand, perhaps this will trigger enough outrage that people will unite against it? yttik | 11.05.08 - 12:35 pm | #
Jay,
One explanation may be that our black friends have been so incited and ignited by the one-note of bo's campaign that they have become entrenched in the myopia that black people are the equivalent of German Jews and no one, no one has been as historically savaged as they. I wish someone would try to explain that possible reason (which understandably would never be uttered outside a blog such as this) to our Native American, Asian (specially Chinese and Japanese), and Hispanic friends.
To use the argument that "now, it's our turn" is specious at best. It's also in a way Marxist because it presumes there's only so much justice "pie" to go around. Jeannie | 11.05.08 - 12:43 pm | #
Proof positive that discrimination against the LGBT community isn't the sole property of conservatives. I appreciate the stats of how the different groups voted on Prop 8, but as a gay woman I already knew how each of those groups would shake out. CarolynKB | 11.05.08 - 1:09 pm | #
Proof! that bigotry comes in all colors and ideologies...
Regards to all Bob | 11.05.08 - 2:25 pm | #
Jeannie --
Something that plays in here is that so many black men are on the 'down low' that it fuels massive homophobia.
I think this has a lot to do with it. Jay in (not of) L.A. | Homepage | 11.05.08 - 2:46 pm | #
To think, if Obama had not been pandering (assuming he was pandering and not a complete homophobe himself) to the Right and to the AA community, then I doubt Prop 8 would have passed.
Obama was the invisible man in terms of gay rights and look at what happened--every single anti-gay measure on ballots in various states passed.
Obama could have been a beacon for us, especially in light of his support in the AA community. He could have stressed our rights. He could have analogized to the historical AA struggle for equal rights.
Instead, he emphasized that marriage was between a man and a woman, put homophobic assholes on his campaign payroll, and stood by silenty as his support grew and ours waned.
If people really think that Obama will elect a progressive to SCOTUS, they really need to wake up already. The man is going to be angling for reelection for a majority of his time in office. He isn't going to do anything to jeopardize his popularity with groups that--as a whole--despise gay people. brand | 11.05.08 - 3:18 pm | #
Brand --
I wish it weren't so, but you're probably right on. Jay in (not of) L.A. | Homepage | 11.05.08 - 3:32 pm | #
Brand, you are exactly right. I have always said that any gay person who thought Obama would do anything for gay rights is delusional. We have been used for our votes (not mine) and now we will be tossed aside. And now within the past twenty-four hours, Hamas has fired missles into Israel and today the Russian president is threatening missle deployment to eastern Europe. Didn't Medvedev hear we had elected the One? Isn't the world supposed to join hands now and sing kumbayah? Thank goodness we elected such an "expert" on foreign policy. Lcash | 11.05.08 - 4:06 pm | #
Jay: Ahh. Hadn't thought of that, but you may have something there. Jeeze. If so, that's a poor excuse for them isn't it? Jeannie | 11.05.08 - 4:08 pm | #
Lcash: True story? I just took a little break from a home project and haven't had the "news" on. Jeannie | 11.05.08 - 4:10 pm | #
I think we are going to see what we called in Chicago the Harold Washington coalition fall apart. This coalition, in effect since the start of the civil rights era and which brought the city’s first AA mayor to power, was of “lakefront liberals” and AAs against the working class Bungalow Belt. It was always a very awkward coalition, as the two camps share so few social mores aside from civil rights, and often have opposed interests. Republicans have wondered for years why more religious African Americans don’t vote GOP, but their own racist appeals did in their efforts to woo this electorate.
However, now that the coalition has achieved its ultimate goal, it is newly vulnerable. The passage of Prop 8 and other anti-LGBT results show major cracks in the coalition, cracks which Republicans or Democratic rivals will try to exploit.
Far from entering a post racial era, we may see some heating up in relations as resentment over Prop 8 and other conservative wins abetted by AA voters boils over.
I think there’s going to be a shift in the power balance in the coalition. It’s going to be much harder to manipulate coalition allies through liberal guilt now that an African American has attained the highest office in the land. In fact, I’ve wondered whether there isn’t an undercurrent of hostility to white support for Obama: “Okay, we gave you a black President. Now STFU.” (My only data points are the resentment that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton’s grandstanding generated, and the fact that all those votes for Giuliani came from somewhere in that very liberal city.) The Sharpton-type demagogues, the AA clergy who act insulted when gay rights are called civil rights, AAs who fight women’s rights, are ripe to be called out, because Obama's election has drained their claim to the moral high ground of some of its power. ugsome | 11.05.08 - 4:20 pm | #
Yes yes, it's always those pesky black people to blame. That 10% of the population made the decision for the rest of the 90%.
And then PUMA and their ilk wonder why people think they are racially biased.
Sincerly,
A gay black male. J.L | 11.05.08 - 4:34 pm | #
So, JL, the 70% of black women who voted against the civil rights of gay people, but voted for Obama because he's black... what exactly do you have to say about them? Jay in (not of) L.A. | Homepage | 11.05.08 - 5:00 pm | #
Lcash: Then you've got to see TomK's post under "Be of Good Cheer" this morning. Eery timing. Take a look at what he has to say. Jeannie | 11.05.08 - 5:04 pm | #
ugsome: Please stick around for at least the next few days -- you give a (very) articulate voice to my bumbling thoughts.
So your thoughts are that whites have finally redeemed themselves with the blacks of this country and now that card is off the table? Let's hope bo appoints a huge mix of "others" to various positions so we can move through those discussions, too. We can only hope. Jeannie | 11.05.08 - 5:11 pm | #
J.L.: Please, really. We're all going to fumble the words around these issues -- don't shut down the dialogue with self-referencing pity and then attack PUMA. I'm a proud PUMA and I can tell you that we've all been under fire from the aa's as being "old", old and "white", old, white and "female", "whores", "bitches", and words I cannot write -- ever. The only "people" who think we are racist are the ones who thought we had no good reason to not vote for bo. The same ones who had gave us no good reasons to vote for him -- and still couldn't. But that's old news now. Jeannie | 11.05.08 - 5:20 pm | #
Jeannie -- mark your calendar... we're on the same page! Jay in (not of) L.A. | Homepage | 11.05.08 - 5:22 pm | #
Jay: You make me smile. Come on, now. You know we've been in agreement on things before. Haven't we? Well, you would probably know that better than me. Jeannie | 11.05.08 - 5:32 pm | #
Jeannie wrote: "So your thoughts are that whites have finally redeemed themselves with the blacks of this country and now that card is off the table? "
More to the point, that they think they have. It is going to be much harder to argue the case for white complicity in racism when all they have to do is look back with big doe eyes and point at Obama.
I also think there is going to be one ugly backlash from all the flinging about the R-word this year. The R-word has become the "commie" of the left--vicious, intended to discredit and destroy, while trivialized and drained of meaning.
I think AAs won a great victory last night but it contains the seeds of some great losses to come. ugsome | 11.05.08 - 5:34 pm | #
There were several initiatives on the ballot to attempt to limit the mass slaughter of children through the practice of abortion, they all failed.
Those same good people who think its okey dokey to kill the babies of pregnant teens in California without notifiying the parents of the teen of the horrifying and mentally challenging procedure she is about to undergo, think it is also okey dokey to tell faggots to go to the back of the bus and drink from gay only waterfountains. They care not for a fetus' right to life or for faggots right to marry but only about their rights and themselves and fuck the babies and the fags neither of us deserve to live or have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
There are 2 kinds of straight people in this world, those who hate gay people to their face and those who hate gay people behind their back!
The next time I see misogyny, and racism, I will say "Fuck it-no one stuck up for me, why should I stick up for anyone else?"
Not really, I'll speak out-I can't help it- even if people hate me, I will stand up for them. Topher: in LA not L.A. | 11.05.08 - 5:46 pm | #
I am a gay man and I believe that Barack Obama used the gay community much like he used the black community and he will dispose of both constituencies with haste. Gay’s are so quick to fall in love with the idea of a pro-gay candidate that we often don’t think to ask questions. Think Bill Clinton-don't ask don't tell and DoMA and Welfare Reform. Three anti-gay measures were overwhelmingly adopted in three states so far tonight. I’am still waiting on California's prop 8. For the GLBT community there was not a nickels worth of difference between Obama and McCain’s position on gay marriage with the exception John McCain felt it was not necessary for a constitutional amendment, and it was a state’s rights issue. Obama never clarified his position on that and Hillary did. The GLBT’s got screwed again and Obama rode us bareback and neither used lube nor protection!
Oh and did I mention how he also screwed women by the intimation that women cannot hold one of the highest offices of the land. Topher: in LA not L.A. | 11.05.08 - 6:04 pm | #
Topher: I see. Your civil rights matter, but my women's rights don't. Take your sanctimonious baby-killer bullshit elsewhere. ugsome | 11.05.08 - 6:05 pm | #
Topher: I will agree with you that women were royally screwed as well. It's going to be a shitty four years for women and gays alike. ugsome | 11.05.08 - 6:06 pm | #
Dear J.L., the numbers speak for themselves. AAs voted for Prop 8 at a much higher rate than other groups. There is no special dispensation for one group to discriminate against another. If one group overwhelming goes for Prop 8, I will call them out as bigots, whether they are black, Latino, white, or blue with green spots.
You are going to find that painting people with the R-word brush is rapidly losing its effectiveness due to overuse. ugsome | 11.05.08 - 6:09 pm | #
Ah, but ugsome and Topher, you're both wrong -- about the next 4 years. The paint is still wet here, kids. Ugsome, you had it right in your comment above. The discussion on race, though not concluded, is thinner now than it has been in a long time. Gays and women are now freer to step forward and take their portions now -- and the arguments on their behalf are made all the stronger because of this.
And Topher, there are more than 2 kinds of people in the world regarding gays, friend. You don't really believe what you said, do you? Jeannie | 11.05.08 - 6:16 pm | #
I am surprised Asians came out against Prop 8. Makes me proud to be one on this sad the day after.
I suppose it makes sense in a way since Asians usually do not like to stick their noses into other people's business, and people's pursuit of happiness is their own business!
I also have my own "two kind of people" meter: Those who care about other people, and those who don't. In the end, a person's actions tell you everything you need to know. That's why I can never be an obot. kc | 11.05.08 - 7:42 pm | #
And all these gay websites and celebs that came out so strongly for BO, and even implied that if you didn't support BO, you were a traitor. I wonder what those people are thinking now? That BO would come save the day down the line? Sorry, he'll be too busy basking in his glory, or something. Self-delusions fade ever so slowly, even though the evidence was clear from the start. Gay obots are just the first to feel the tug of reality. They will be the first group thrown under the bus. kc | 11.05.08 - 7:56 pm | #
The bad result in California turned out as it was forecast by the pollsters. It is a sad absurdity that a symbolic triumph of civil rights ran concurrent with a real abrogation of the rights of the GLBT community. Steven Mather | 11.05.08 - 7:59 pm | #
Am I (not) seeing things? I have to travel from one end of our large northwest city to the other in dense traffic as a carpool mom. Seems to me every other vehicle had a bo sticker on it a few days ago. Maybe half a dozen is all I see today. Could it be? Did all those Prius drivers....? Nah. maybe? Jeannie | 11.05.08 - 8:25 pm | #
OK--back up here! Fact is over 50% of Californians voted for Prop 8. We can slice and dice the demographics and point fingers at certain groups, but that seems unfair to me. Blacks make up 10% of the population. So if only 8% of Blacks vote, and 5% of that # are for prop 8, that is only a small portion of the electorate that is voting for Prop 8. Just because someone is a Democrat doesn't mean they support gay marriage. I don't recall the major candidates saying they support gay marriage. Kara | Homepage | 11.05.08 - 9:00 pm | #
Kara --
How can you address my note above?
How is it okay that, demographically speaking, the minority group that has been the central focus of civil rights in this country, voted OVERWHELMINGLY against the civil rights of another group while simultaneously cheering their own civil rights victory? Jay in (not of) L.A. | Homepage | 11.05.08 - 9:11 pm | #
I think that the problem Kara is that Prop 8 would not have passed if Asians, Latinos, and Whites were the only ones voting.
It's because the AA community voted so overwhelmingly for it that it passed.
Although the AA population here is small, it really turned the tide on 8.
Whites and Asians voted 53% against it. Latinos voted 51% for it. Those numbers easily cancel each other out.
There is plenty of blame to go around as to why such a hateful proposition passed in what is supposed to be a liberal state, but, when it comes down to it, one of the most oppressed groups in the history of the US stood together to oppress another oppressed group. To me, that is not only hypocritical, but tragic. brand | 11.05.08 - 9:11 pm | #
This one needs attention: The anti-equality measure on California's ballot is now winning in the polls. Gay Americans are not second class citizens. If you can't give money - give time. This is a matter of simple justice. Not "social" justice. No is asking for "special" rights, only equal rights. There is no liberal mush mixed into this issue. Allowing gay couples the right to marirage is, in fact, conservative. Marriage is a stabilizing instiution. From Alexander the Great to Ellen Degeneres - Gays and Lesbians are part of the human story.
Flotsam: The Obama pattern of associating with sketchy people and groups and then denying it when the facts come out -is focused on here.
Jetsum: I am a middle aged nerd - I bought the corn flakes with Michael Phleps on the box.
Flostam: Uppity is a take no prisoners blogger. She discusses Ayres's recent comments about the U.S. here.
I have a ranter friend (don't we all) Mike -Since he was always going off about something I set up a "rant" site called Mule Kick to the Crotch for him to unload on topics other than politics. Give LR some variety etc etc. He has not used his space to much but you can check out a few rants here. Last night he sent me a political rant... so I am putting it on L.R. It made me smile. Actually, it is harsh - but not too bad - however if your sensibilities are very delicate - skip it. Mike's homerun moment: The 'old people did this' paragraph.
FROM MIKE:
Dear Mr. Polly Prissy Pretend President,
Listen up Your Highness Obama. I have something to say.
Shut TF up about race. Now. We are sick of it. In fact, this writer is sick to death of it. You keep saying crap like "they" will try to scare you because you don't look like past Presidents or you have a weird last name or whatever. Bullshit. BULL SHIT. This is nonsense. You got millions of votes (less than Hillary but still millions) in the primaries. None of those voters gave a shit you look like the result of Dr. Moreau sending Alfred E Newman, Bob Saget, Dumbo, and Urkle through a wood chipper and fusing their DNA in a wheat grass juicer.
Many still voted for ya, homeboy!
Of course, in your weird world voters in California, West Virginia, Michigan, Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, Massachusetts, Indiana, American Samoa, New Mexico, South Dakota, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Arkansas and Rhode Island are all racists.
WRONG! You lost all those contests and you lost the popular vote. And not because your father was African. I am not afraid of you because of your race (es) or your "weird" middle and last names. I am afraid of you because you're a buffoon - an errand boy sent by grocery clerks. You've done nothing in your adult life except promote yourself.
I AM FED UP WITH THE IMPLICATION THAT IF I DON'T VOTE FOR YOU I AM A BIGOT.
F*#k YOU.
You have overplayed the race card. And we are turning on you, dude. BIG TIME! Stop playing the whiny victim. God - I can imagine you being President. It will be all: "Ooooh Putin was so mean to me. He doesn't like me cuz I'm black" Whaaa, whaaaa, whaaa.
As for your middle name - WTF? We can't say it because...why?....I didn't give you that name, dude. A lot of good people have your middle name. Why are you ashamed of it? Why are WE playing dirty for mentioning YOUR middle name?
Grow up, whiner. I can say your middle name if I want. It is not my fault your daddy put that name on some birth certificate no one can come up with.
Your whole campaign is through the bloody looking glass. YOU can talk about race but WE, who oppose you, can't.
Screw that.
If you talk race. We talk back. Grow up.
Every time you bring up race you smear millions. You smeared the last Democratic President with this race crap. It was unforgivable. YOU ARE UNFORGIVEN. You played dirty, rotten scumbag politics with the most painful issue in American history. This makes you a dirty, rotten scumbag.
Stop whining you whiner.
Not one damn thing in your life indicates you have ever been held back because of your race. The opposite is true. Millions oppose you because they OPPOSE YOU, your policies, your lack of experience, the obnoxious rock concerts you put on, your freakish history populated by Marxists, bomb makers, slumlords, brain dead minsters, effete America bashing limo liberals, and Democratic Socialist pseudo intellectual gas bags. As John forever points out, you remain in this contest only because the deranged media refuses to report on these criminals, killers and imbeciles.
I don't care one damn bit what you look like. Also, Your Highness, it is dumb politics. You think implying that millions of voters who have justified reservations about you want to hear for the next 3 months they are probably racist? Dumb ass. That is gonna make people mad as hell. SHUT UP ABOUT IT.
Stop whining you whiner.
You want to talk about race, Barry? Why don't you cough up whiny Michelle's Princeton thesis? Let's hear Missy "I am finally proud of my country" Michelle defend or refute HERSELF.
Then you attack by implying that McCain has committed the great crime of aging. You are obnoxious. McCain is 71. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed a peace accord with the PLO when he was 71. Michelangelo created the architectural plans for the Church of Santa Maria degli Angeli when he was 88. Albert Schweitzer ran a hospital in Africa when he was 89. Take your stupid ageism and shove it where the sun don't shine, Barry. In a sane society aging is an asset. You are proof we need some professional help. Only in the sick little American Idol world of the United States of 2008 are you even possible.
Read a blog today that said calling you "arrogant" had racist implications, too. Moron. I say to that blowhard no,no,no,no,no!!!! You will not remove that word too. You are arrogant. The evidence is everywhere. It is not racist to call you arrogant. It is truthful.
I am not a racist. I am not voting for you. Deal with it, Barry.
God forgive me for linking to the Huffington Post. But even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day. Sean Wilentz lays it out. In every presidential election they have won, the Democrats have solidified their historic link to white workers, not dismissed them. Obama and the champions of a new party coalition appear to think that everything has suddenly changed, simply because of the force of their own desires. In any event, Obama had shown no ability thus far to attract the one constituency that has always spelled the difference between victory and defeat for the Democratic Party.
Obama intends change indeed. He intends to destroy the historic underpinnings of the Democratic Party.
Having attempted, with the aid of a complicit news media, to brand Hillary Clinton as a racist- by flinging charges that, as the historian Michael Lind has shown, belong "in black helicopter/grassy knoll territory," Obama's supporters now fiercely claim that Clinton's white working class following is also essentially racist.
The Obama advocates declare that we have entered an entirely new political era. It is not only possible but also desirable, they say, for Democrats to win by turning away from those whom "progressive" pundits and bloggers disdain variously as "Nascar man," "uneducated," "low information" whites, "rubes, fools, and hate-mongers"who live in the nation's "shitholes."
Let me add as a Progressive: Obama's campaign is anti-liberal. It is racist in tone and deed. Should Obama succeed in forcing his will on the party there will be no reason for me and millions of others to remain Democrats.
My mantra remains: The fundamental force animating Obama's campaign is not Hope and Change. It is Resentment and Anger.
Now I must go shower off after spending a few minutes at the Huff Post.
On a previous post a comment was made asking what are we afraid of if Obama gets the nomination?
I'm afraid in the next few years the shit is going to hit the fan and we need someone who is present and doesn't just vote "present."
We are running out of oil. John is Mr. Peak Oil guy and can tell you that our whole economy is based on cheap oil. Cheap oil is gone. Hello $200 per barrel. We're going to need someone in the Oval Office who can offer solutions and not platitudes.
I live in Florida and was hit by three hurricanes in 2004. Charlie was BAD. Global warming will increase the severity of hurricanes. I don't trust someone who caved on nuclear regulations for his home state to fight for a carbon tax.
There is a global food shortage. Can someone who is concerned about the price of arugula deal with the price of rice? Or the lack of rice? Or corn?
We are losing our standing in the world. A man who sat in a pew for twenty years and never saw a problem with a pastor who had the audacity to dry hump on the pulpit to mock a former Democratic President is not someone who I want representing me. A man who says he transcends race but race baited and only disowned his racist pastor after the pastor accused him of acting like a politician has no moral compass or morality.
I am afraid of Michelle Obama. She complains because she got in to Princeton despite her low test scores. Wow, that's such a drag. She complains about paying back student loans. Man, I feel so sorry for her. She went to two expensive schools and they actually expect her to pay for it?
I'm afraid of never getting universal health care. Senator Obama's plan stinks and he used Republican talking points to put down Senator Clinton's. I just can't see him pushing it through.
I'm afraid of re-living Jimmy Carter's presidency.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote for McCain. Because you can scream about the Supreme Court or a Bush third term but we need a grown up in the White House and if that grown up isn't Senator Clinton I'll take my chances with McCain.
Vote Totals - including Florida and Michigan. Every single uncommitted vote in Michigan I counted as an Obama vote. Obama: 14,738,256 Clinton: 14,734,256
That is a 4000 vote difference nationally. 4000. With Pennsylvania yet to come. Gee, I wonder if Hillary will flip the total there?
So to all those who say Clinton should get out - I say: SHUT UP!
If I ever reflect on how it is that I went from being a huge fan of Obama's, to a person who was excited about him and waiting to hear his plans, to wondering why I was not hearing anything tangible, to coming to terms with that fact he had no intention of clarifying anything, to coming to understand that he was a shallow pretender, to loathing everything his campaign represents - I will look no further than this email I received today from an Obamite:
let me guess with all respect, -- you are below college education. thats for sure. right? -- you have a working class background. thats also for sure. right? -- you are not interested in politics. thats possible. right? -- you prefer to eat cheese stakes at geno's. thats also possible. right? -- your are just a bad bad-boy who likes to play mind games. maybe. right? have a nice day
I loath these people. I will vote for McCain or no one if Obama gets the nomination. Not because every one of these assumptions is wrong about me. I have a BFA, come from a middle class background, am obsessed with politics, and am a bad boy but not a "bad bad" boy. (A cheese "stake" would be a bizarre and pointless item so I have no use for it, but I do like a cheese steak every now and again). I will vote for McCain or not at all because of the dripping, oozing condescension that Obamites have for those without college degrees. Because of the high end, fraudulent contempt Obamites have for the working class. Because I do not want to sit through another 4 years of an administration populated by those who think "cheese steak" consumers are less than equal partners in a democracy. I don't give a flying crap where the prigs land on the Left/Right scale.
By lying overtly and covertly about who he is Obama has poisoned this campaign and this country. He has used his considerable talents as an orator to fool the chattering classes and the media. He has used skillful oratory to blur his questionable past, rewrite our recent history, and open another gash in the wound of race in America. He has taken the difficult issue of race and turned it into a Benetton commercial and wonders why Pennsylvania isn't buying it. He breathlessly compares his grandmother to the putrid Wright and wonders why his grand "speech" didn't take. He has taken the low road, while claiming the high one. He has lied about his intentions for the wars if elected. He has lied about his association with his church: Our Lady of Perpetual Resentment. He has plagiarized speeches, lied about both Clintons, lied about NAFTA, and run a dishonest, ruthless campaign. He has willfully associated with bigots, slumlords and terrorists to further his career. (Yes, William Ayres is a terrorist.) He has turned the idea of meritocracy on its head by elevating vagueness and self promotion to messianic heights. He has accomplished nothing of note in his public life and insults those who have. Finally, the clip below of the staged "woman fainting" at his revival meetings is seemingly minor but goes to the heart of the Obama ideology: Illusion over reality.
He is a fraud.
I loath his campaign for good reason.
Voters in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, and North Carolina can drive a stake (cheese?) into the heart of the Obama campaign - or Republicans, Independents, and 25-40% of the Democrats can in November.
Let me tell you: if Michigan and Florida had not been thrown overboard by Howard Dean and Donna Brazile - Obama would not matter. "God Damn, America!" is not going away. It is testimony to the willing irresponsibility of the media that Wright's bile was not shown to the nation earlier. If Wright had been known to us in January, Obama would be a footnote now. It was out there to be seen. It is only compliant, brain-dead, synchophants in the MSM that kept those tapes off the air for so long. With two candidates that cannot get a majority of the delegates we have a real monster on our hands.
Obama has never been qualified for the Presidency. But staying in a church in which your pastor screams GOD DAMN AMERICA! from the pulpit disqualifies him forever. He is responsible for his actions. His action in this case was to make excuses. All the ass kissing by all the kings men - and women - (Olbermann, Dowd, Rich, and the rest) can't put Obama back together again. Independents are falling away like Greenland glaciers. Republicans will be energized. And half the Democratic party will be angry.
Finally, when all is said and done - it is his lunatic supporters I fear most. We have gotten a small taste of that happy mob turning ugly this week. Imagine what they'd do with a President Obama (lol) stranded between his own rhetoric and reality.
BHO told Hillary that words DO matter. I agree. They don't matter as much as actions, though. Obama put his own LIVING grandmother in the same context at Rev. Wright. It is grotesque. This is the woman who raised him while his "free spirit" mother was gone. Here is why that speech of his Tuesday does not and should not matter: He gave lip service to "black anger" and "white resentment" without honestly seeming to understand what causes "white resentment". Using the ancient comments of one of the women who raised him as a theater piece to make a point in speech calculated to save a political campaign goes to the heart of the problem. Obama does not get it. With people like Rev. Wright there is never enough progress. They use history as a battering ram while at the same time ignoring it. Progress has been made, but members of Obama's church don't seem to think so. Michelle Obama says in the clip posted below that her husband as a black man "could get shot at a gas station." without bothering to note that statistics indicate that the shooter would most likely be black as well. Any conversation about race (Lynne pointed out that we are often about to start a conversation about race but rarely go on to have it...remember the Imus affair.) must be as much about responsibility as it is about injustice. It's 2008, not 1968. This is what Michelle and Barrack Obama don't seem to understand. In not understanding this they telegraph and confirm the worst suspicions of many non black voters.
Whether BHO and Wright likes it or not, whether it is "fair" or not is beside the point. The fact is much of the nation is sick to death of taking the blame for what appears to be callous irresponsibility. The haranguing of Bill Cosby by black "leaders" when he dared state that some of the problems in the black community were the fault of the black community is a good example.
To put his own Grandmother in the same category as Mark Furman is desperate.
Thanks to Scott for pointing this clip out. The guy who made it was fired from the McCain campaign today - but I am sure he's employed by a Swift boater by now. It is a sad day when a GOP operative has to be the one pointing out the obvious.
I commend Obama for his speech today. He tried, at least, to get out in front of the conversation and I like that in a politician. He tried to put the Wrong Reverend Wright in some context. Though he was moving (of course, we expect no less at this point) and personal there is only one context for Rev Wright that matters politically - He said "We should not be singing God Bless America we should be singing God Damn America." from the pulpit...
From the pulpit of a church he refuses to leave. That is the context.
I admit this: I am sick of Black Anger. My liberal guilt has morphed into liberal exhaustion. I know many who feel the same way. Many are fed up with making excuses and hearing excuses for bad behavior. For what? To hear a man spew bile from a pulpit? And to then hear a major party candidate make excuses for his membership in this man's church?
An African American commentator said on Fox - "you just don't understand the black church."
No. I don't. If Wright is any indication I no longer care to.
What Rev Wright exposes from that pulpit is not "black anger" so much as it is creepy paranoia. The sermons we have all seen are lists of every screwy idea that too many white voters have long suspected had currency in the black community:
A contempt for the country.
A belief that AIDS came from the government.
Willy nilly, shockingly mean spirited, sexual jibs at President Clinton (for the purpose of rewriting history and Bill Clinton's entire life.) The casual, joking dismissal of Bill Clinton's record on race is disgusting.
An attack on Hillary Clinton's ability to empathize because "she has never been called a niger". Meaning, one assumes, that she just doesn't get it. But lets call this what it is: an attack on her WHITENESS.
A grotesque reference to 9/11.
There is nothing unifying about any of this.
And Obama did not leave this church. By playing fast and lose with race during the past 3 months Obama has become THE divisive candidate. It may not be fair. But there it is. When a Clinton campaign aid said something remotely off base about race she put an end to them. And apologized. Obama made eloquent excuses today.
The BHO campaign used race all along. When it worked in South Carolina they used it and tried to tamp all questions about it down when the political winds blew the other way. His race did not matter - unless it did. Axelrod dictated the when and the where - and the Olbermanns played along. Wright ruined that. The talking points about race have been ripped from Obama's hands. It turns out, Mr. Axlerod, the world is not a Benetton ad campaign.
Tonight I was seeing a truly ridiculous rendering of the otherwise sublime Sweeney Todd in downtown Los Angeles so I have not seen any media. I am sure they are dutifully awestruck. I am not at all sure it matters. Time Magazine has a bunch of responses to the speech. Some are glowing, some not. Michael Munger a professor at Duke said this: A black candidate named Barrack Hussein Obama can't have questions about his patriotism, and commitment to America, not if he is going to beat a genuine war hero. I think Obama is unelectable.
That sums it up neatly. Democrats face and awful choice. A choice created when Obama's handlers decided to make South Carolina a referendum for black voters by race baiting Clinton's LBJ comment.
Questions about Obama's judgement will not go away. It is possible Obama might become a first class Senator given time. I wish he had not gotten this far before Wright's views were aired. He could then slide easily back to the Senate. Now his nomination will ensure an ugly, hateful fall campaign. Clinton's merely ensures a nasty one. After his speech today it is hard to fathom a scenario now in which he beats McCain. The GOP convention will be 4 days of singing God Bless America. There is no state Bush won in 2004 that he can turn blue. None. There are at least 4 Blue states that will go Red. Probably more. He condemned part of what Wright said but not the man. He needed to use his enormous gifts as an orator to obliterate any connection to Wright. He did not. Again, it may not be fair. But the majority will not tolerate a President who tolerates Rev. Wright's idea of America. I acknowledge that this fact has elements of racism. A white candidate with an awful white preacher in tow might get by. A black one cannot.
