The vice presidency is a fabric of our democracy mockingly derided as “not worth a bucket of dry spit.” However, the selection of a candidate for vice president is important because it is the first choice a presidential nominee makes. The selection is indicative of the judgment of the prospective president. A good choice can build momentum towards victory in the general election. A bad choice could sabotage a political campaign. A great choice can make history.
In 2004, Senator John Kerry selected North Carolina Senator John Edwards, but the ticket was doomed to fail because this particular Democratic ticket could not agree on the right slogan for their bumper sticker. Senator Kerry campaign slogan was “Help is on the Way.” Senator Edwards was partial to “Hope is on the Way.”
In 2000, Vice President Gore selected Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Selecting the first Jewish vice presidential candidate was a bold choice, however the move backfired because, in southern Florida, elderly voters were unable to master the infamous butterfly ballot. Numerous votes were lost because the ballots were insufficiently perforated. Also, Senator Lieberman turned out to be a neo-conservative who is actively campaigning for the Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain.
In 1972, Senator George McGovern selected Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton as his running mate. However Mr. Eagleton removed himself from the ticket when newspapers reported Mr. Eagleton received electro-shock therapy.
Not all Democratic vice presidential nominees were losers. Governor Clinton’s selection of Senator Al Gore was an excellent choice. Breaking with tradition, Governor Clinton selected a fellow southerner who was a centrist like himself.
Senator Lloyd Bentsen overshadowed Democratic presidential nominee Governor Mike Dukakis. Vice President Walter Mondale courageously made history by selecting Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman who was nominated to be vice president. Governor Jimmy Carter chose an able running mate in Senator Walter Mondale.
But the best Democratic ticket of all time was Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy and Texas Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, the powerful Senate Majority leader.
Senator Barack Obama will become the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, despite the blowout loss in the West Virginia primary. The Democratic Party is fractured along racial, ethnic, gender, class and education fault lines.
Senator Clinton’s supporters changed their position regarding the Democratic ticket. Earlier, they argued Senator Obama should be the vice presidential nominee even though Senator Clinton lost the majority of the contests, was behind in pledged delegates and the popular vote. However, Senator Clinton’s operatives hinted she would be receptive to the idea of becoming the vice presidential nominee.
The Mainstream Media joined the chorus, reporting the benefits of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton running together, indicating such a ticket would unify the Democrats after a divisive campaign.
The temptation to select Senator Clinton as the Vice Presidential nominee is strong. Senator Obama should resist that temptation.
Senator Clinton should not be the vice presidential nominee because she is responsible for the division in the Democratic Party. Senator Hillary Clinton ran a tough, negative campaign against the Illinois senator.
It was President Clinton who attempted to diminish Senator Obama’s primary victory in South Carolina by declaring unprompted that another African American presidential candidate (Jesse Jackson) also won the South Carolina primaries in 1984 and 1988.
Also during the South Carolina primary campaign, Senator Clinton said the Reverend Martin Luther King (a black man) made great speeches, but it was President Lyndon Johnson (a white man) who passed the Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, Clinton operatives argued a black man could not win the presidency.
Senator Clinton has mocked Senator Obama’s impressive oratory skills. She diminished Mr. Obama’s political resume to simply delivering a great speech. His supporters are portrayed as delusional. The Clinton campaign labeled Obama’s supporters as “Gucci-wearing latte-drinking self-centered egotistical people.” Her operatives dismissed the states Senator Obama won during the primaries calling these states insignificant.
Senator Clinton argued the super delegates should overrule the will of the voters, and give her the nomination because she has a better chance of winning the general election than Senator Obama. The voters made a mistake in supporting Senator Obama.
Her campaign “leaked” the picture of Barack Obama wearing African garb to the media. The picture reinforced the mistaken perception that Senator Obama is a Muslim.
The Clinton campaign attempted to exploit the relationship between Senator Obama and his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
The controversy over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations at the Democratic convention was manufactured by the Clinton campaign mostly because she won two contests that were not sanctioned by the Democratic Party.
Senator Clinton argued the Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, is more qualified to be commander in chief than Senator Obama.
Choosing Senator Clinton as a running mate would be a mistake because she voted for the authorization to go to war with Iraq. The ticket should reflect Senator Obama’s position on the war in Iraq. The Democratic ticket should be an antiwar ticket.
It was Senator Clinton who divided the party and significantly damaged the Democratic Party’s chances of capturing the presidency. She created the problem; therefore she cannot be the solution.
Furthermore, an Obama-Clinton ticket is flawed. A presidential ticket needs ideological balance; therefore the Democratic Party should not have two liberals with identical voting records on the ticket.
Senator Obama is a basketball fan. He should use the 1997 NBA draft as a guide to selecting his running mate. Wake Forest center Tim Duncan was the first player selected in the draft. The talent gap between the first and second pick (Keith Van Horn) was huge. In fact, the 1997 draft only produced three All Stars: Duncan, Chauncey Billups and Tracy McGrady.
The talent gap between the first person who should be considered for vice president and the other contenders is also vast. There is truly only one viable Democratic vice presidential candidate: Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. The credentials of any other nominee would pale in comparison.
Like Senator Obama, Mr. Webb is a published author. He wrote eight books, six are best selling novels. He has worked as a screenwriter and Hollywood producer. Mr. Webb won an Emmy award for the PBS coverage of the US Marines in Beirut.
Senator Webb adds military credentials to the ticket. Mr. Webb graduated from the Navel Academy in 1968. He received the Superintendent’s Commendation for outstanding leadership contributions.
Mr. Webb graduated first in his class at the Marine Corps Officers’ Basic School in Quantico. He served with the Fifth Marine Regiment in Vietnam. Senator Webb served in Vietnam with honor and distinction. He was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts.
Senator Webb’s service in Vietnam counteracts Senator McCain’s service in Vietnam. In fact, Mr. Webb is a sharp contrast from current Vice President Dick Cheney who did not serve because he had other priorities during the Vietnam War.
Senator Webb’s service in the Marine Corps demonstrated strong leadership skills. Mr. Webb served as a platoon commander. He was an instructor in tactics and weapons at Marine Corps Officer Candidates School. He served on the Secretary of the Navy’s immediate staff before he left the Marine Corps in 1972.
After the Vietnam War, Mr. Webb attended Georgetown University Law and graduated with a law degree in 1975. Mr. Webb was a staff member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs from 1977 to 1981. Mr. Webb established his credentials regarding veteran’s issues. During this period, he represented veteran’s pro-bono.
Mr. Webb served, during the Reagan Administration, as the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from 1984 to 1987. He became the first Naval Academy graduate to serve as Secretary of the Navy In 1987.
Democrats are portrayed as weak regarding national security issues. Selecting a marine who served in Vietnam, and was the Secretary of the Navy under conservative icon Ronald Reagan would counter that argument.
Furthermore, Mr. Webb is qualified to assume the presidency in the event of an emergency.
Senator Webb is a Reagan Democrat. He could attract other Reagan Democrats back to the Democratic Party as Senator Obama’s running mate. Furthermore, Mr. Webb balances the ticket ideologically. Mr. Webb is a conservative Democrat, thus strengthening Mr. Obama’s argument about unifying the country.
The Iraq War will be a major issue in the presidential campaign. Choosing a running mate who supported the war at its inception, but later changed his mind would encourage the Republican Party to attack the vice presidential nominee, labeling him a flip-flopper. Senator Kerry became a target in 2004 when he was unable to clearly explain his position on the war in Iraq.
Mr. Webb displayed leadership prior to the Iraq War. He wrote an article published in the Washington Post arguing against an invasion of Iraq before the Bush Administration initiated the public relations campaign to launch the war. His analysis demonstrated discerning insight. “The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay… Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq’s regime, but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.”[i]
Mr. Webb had a better understanding of the politics in the Middle East than the Bush Administration. “The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.”[ii]
Mr. Webb’s foreign policy goals would correspond with Senator Obama’s. “Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation’s existence is clearly at stake.”[iii]
Senator Obama wants to withdraw U.S. troops in Iraq over the period of 16 months. He will need someone with a strong military background to counter the arguments from the neo-conservatives who will have a platform to make their accusations on cable talk shows and talk radio.
Selecting Senator Webb would demonstrate Senator Obama is not insecure or intimidated about choosing a running mate with stature and prestige, unlike former President George H.W. Bush who was criticized for selecting Dan Quayle, a political lightweight, as his running mate.
Race will be an issue in the general election. “You’ve got some conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate,” said Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.[iv] He was correct.
However, Senator Webb should be able to inoculate Senator Obama from white voters who would not consider voting for a black man. Mr. Webb could nullify the racist elements from the presidential campaign. In effect, Mr. Webb will vouch for Senator Obama’s character.
The Democratic Party is perceived as antimilitary. Senator Webb said he became a Republican after the Vietnam War because of the Democratic Party’s position during the war. Selecting Mr. Webb could repair the damage.
Senator Webb introduced a new GI Bill to provide military personnel with “comprehensive educational benefits.” An Obama-Webb ticket could make the new GI Bill a major issue in the presidential campaign. Furthermore, the Democrats should make the care of veterans a central issue in the campaign, to provide better healthcare, more services, and shelter to all veterans who proudly served in the military.
Politically, enhancing services to veterans will expose the hypocrisy of the Republican Party who claim to support the troops, but refuse to fund programs for veterans. Senator McCain is against the new GI Bill. Furthermore, Mr. McCain “voted to kill an amendment that would have increased veteran medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006… Just a year later McCain voted against an amendment that would have increased Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid by closing corporate tax loopholes.”[v]
Senator Obama is on the verge of making history by becoming our nation’s first African American president. It will be an accomplishment that will echo throughout the world. Our country will recover a measure of respect. Senator James Webb from Virginia is an excellent vice presidential candidate who will greatly contribute to Senator Obama’s historic achievement.
Please visit http://webb.senate.gov/ for more information about Senator Jim Webb. The website was an invaluable source for this article.
[i] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[ii] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[iii] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[iv] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[v] Brian Beutler, “McCain Sells Out Vets,” The Nation, June 2, 2008.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Friday, May 09, 2008
Madam Strangelove
What do Iran, Lex Luthor, Dr. No, Darth Vader and Saddam Hussein have in common? They are fictional enemies.
But if you believe Senator Clinton, Iran is the latest threat to mankind. In the April 16 televised presidential debate, George Stephanopoulos asked the Democratic candidates if the United States should adopt a new foreign policy to protect Israel’s security. “Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?”asked Mr. Stephanopoulos.[i]
“Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel,” said Senator Clinton. “Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”[ii]
Senator Clinton expanded her answer during an interview with Keith Olbermann. “I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War, when we had a bipolar world. And what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel,” said Senator Clinton. “In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement, where we said, no, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons. If you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.”[iii]
Mrs. Clinton continued her militaristic rhetoric during an interview with ABC News. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran… In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,”said Senator Clinton.[iv]
This is a departure from her previous position regarding hypothetical questions. Senator Clinton often refused to answer hypothetical questions in Democratic presidential debates and during interviews.
Furthermore, Senator Clinton criticized Senator Obama about a comment he made early in the campaign regarding potential military action in Pakistan. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” said Mr. Obama, “we will.”[v]
The media portrayed Senator Obama’s comment as a gaffe. Senator Clinton used that comment to argue Mr. Obama was too inexperienced in foreign affairs to be president. However, the argument lost its effectiveness when the Bush Administration launched an attack against an Al Qaeda target in Pakistan.
Now she wants to destroy Iran because the Iranians may obtain nuclear weapons in the future, thus jeopardizing Israel’s security. What made her change her mind?
First, she is losing the race to become the Democratic presidential nominee. Second, Senator Clinton is trying to prove she is capable of being the Commander In Chief. Third, she is getting desperate and the Bush Administration has demonstrated fear works even if the threat is not real.
President Bush convinced Americans the evil Saddam Hussein possessed a lethal ray gun that could destroy the United States and the evil Iraqi dictator was about to launch an armada of nuclear powered robots to invade the United States. Implausible? Like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?
President Bush exploited the fears of Americans to initiate a war against Iraq. The war was based on flawed intelligence. The President took advantage of our insecurity to abuse the Bill of Rights. Mr. Bush used the threat of terrorism to win a second term as president. In politics, fear works. Unfortunately, President Bush created a precedent. To win an election you can scare the electorate into voting for you.
However, there is another factor that is being ignored by the public. The Clintons are motivated by public opinion polls. It is an historical fact. Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign, in particular, is marketed through focus groups. The Clinton campaign may have detected a weakness of Senator Obama’s with Jewish voters and are exploiting that weakness. If Mr. Obama’s support in the Jewish community is soft, then Senator Clinton will try to secure the pro Israel faction of the Democratic Party by implying she is more committed to the security of Israel than Barack Hussein Obama. It is part of the strategy to diminish Senator Obama to the electorate and especially the super delegates.
Senator Clinton is using scare tactics regardless of her true motivation. She learned this skill by observing the Bush Administration over the last seven years and watching movies.
In the movie “Wag the Dog,” a Washington DC poltical insider asks a Hollywood producer to stage a phony war with Albania to distract the public from a presidential sex scandal with a minor. Why Albania? “Because we found out they have the bomb… And wait a second… The bomb’s not there because they’d have to have a rocket… It’s a suitcase bomb. You don’t need missiles. You can put a bomb in a suitcase… And it’s in Canada. Albanian terrorists have placed a suitcase bomb in Canada in an attempt to infiltrate it into the USA,”said Stanley Moss as portrayed by Dustin Hoffman.[vi]
The current presidential campaign has taught us Senator Clinton shares an adverse flaw with President Bush. They do not read. In August 2001, President Bush did not read the Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States.”
In 2002, Senator Clinton did not read the flawed National Intelligence Estimate’s report about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, nor did she read the National Intelligence Estimate in 2007. The report clearly stated, “Iran had halted a military program in 2003, though it continues to enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful uses.”[vii]
The Mediacracy is participating in the charade because they are asking questions based on a false premise. Furthermore, the media neglects to correct the presidential candidates when they make false assumptions that are based on a false premise.
Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, and is currently not a threat to launch a nuclear attack against Israel. It is extremely irresponsible for President Bush, Senator Clinton and the Mediacracy to declare Iran a nuclear threat.
Americans are uninformed. That is a problem. We do not take the time to research and investigate an issue. We ignore history. For example, in 1974 Pakistan Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutt promised to develop nuclear weapons even if it meant Pakistanis had to “eat grass” to achieve this goal. The urgency to develop nuclear weapons was in response to neighboring India successfully detonating a nuclear device. Pakistan and India are enemies. Pakistan was able to manufacture nuclear fuel using domestic uranium in 1980. Pakistan conducted the first of six nuclear weapons tests in 1998.[viii] It took Pakistan 24 years to develop nuclear weapons – without the consent of the international community.
The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003. Using Pakistan as a template, it would take Iran at least a decade to develop nuclear weapons. The nuclear threat against Israel would not be completed until 2019 – the last year in the second term of the Clinton presidency. But we are being led to believe Iran is currently capable of becoming a nuclear threat by a cynical presidential candidate and by a slothful media.
In January, President Clinton characterized Senator Obama’s position on the Iraq war as a fairy tale, but Senator Clinton’s apocalyptic assumptions about Iran launching a nuclear attack against Israel and her hypothetical decisive response is a true work of fiction. She can call it “Wag the Dog II – The Road to Armageddon.”
[i] “Transcript Democratic presidential debate 4/16/08,” The New York Times.
[ii] “Transcript Democratic presidential debate 4/16/08,” The New York Times.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 21, 2008.
[iv] Patrick Healy, “Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania,” New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[v] Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Calls For Military Shift in U.S. Focus on Terrorism,” New York Times August 2, 2007.
[vi] “Wag the Dog,” New Line Cinemas, 1998.
[vii] Steven Lee Myers, “An Assessment Jars a Foreign Policy Debate About Iran,” New York Times, December 4, 2007.
[viii] “Timeline: Pakistan’s Nuclear Program,” CNN, 2004.
But if you believe Senator Clinton, Iran is the latest threat to mankind. In the April 16 televised presidential debate, George Stephanopoulos asked the Democratic candidates if the United States should adopt a new foreign policy to protect Israel’s security. “Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?”asked Mr. Stephanopoulos.[i]
“Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel,” said Senator Clinton. “Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”[ii]
Senator Clinton expanded her answer during an interview with Keith Olbermann. “I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War, when we had a bipolar world. And what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel,” said Senator Clinton. “In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement, where we said, no, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons. If you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.”[iii]
Mrs. Clinton continued her militaristic rhetoric during an interview with ABC News. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran… In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,”said Senator Clinton.[iv]
This is a departure from her previous position regarding hypothetical questions. Senator Clinton often refused to answer hypothetical questions in Democratic presidential debates and during interviews.
Furthermore, Senator Clinton criticized Senator Obama about a comment he made early in the campaign regarding potential military action in Pakistan. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” said Mr. Obama, “we will.”[v]
The media portrayed Senator Obama’s comment as a gaffe. Senator Clinton used that comment to argue Mr. Obama was too inexperienced in foreign affairs to be president. However, the argument lost its effectiveness when the Bush Administration launched an attack against an Al Qaeda target in Pakistan.
Now she wants to destroy Iran because the Iranians may obtain nuclear weapons in the future, thus jeopardizing Israel’s security. What made her change her mind?
First, she is losing the race to become the Democratic presidential nominee. Second, Senator Clinton is trying to prove she is capable of being the Commander In Chief. Third, she is getting desperate and the Bush Administration has demonstrated fear works even if the threat is not real.
President Bush convinced Americans the evil Saddam Hussein possessed a lethal ray gun that could destroy the United States and the evil Iraqi dictator was about to launch an armada of nuclear powered robots to invade the United States. Implausible? Like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?
President Bush exploited the fears of Americans to initiate a war against Iraq. The war was based on flawed intelligence. The President took advantage of our insecurity to abuse the Bill of Rights. Mr. Bush used the threat of terrorism to win a second term as president. In politics, fear works. Unfortunately, President Bush created a precedent. To win an election you can scare the electorate into voting for you.
However, there is another factor that is being ignored by the public. The Clintons are motivated by public opinion polls. It is an historical fact. Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign, in particular, is marketed through focus groups. The Clinton campaign may have detected a weakness of Senator Obama’s with Jewish voters and are exploiting that weakness. If Mr. Obama’s support in the Jewish community is soft, then Senator Clinton will try to secure the pro Israel faction of the Democratic Party by implying she is more committed to the security of Israel than Barack Hussein Obama. It is part of the strategy to diminish Senator Obama to the electorate and especially the super delegates.
Senator Clinton is using scare tactics regardless of her true motivation. She learned this skill by observing the Bush Administration over the last seven years and watching movies.
In the movie “Wag the Dog,” a Washington DC poltical insider asks a Hollywood producer to stage a phony war with Albania to distract the public from a presidential sex scandal with a minor. Why Albania? “Because we found out they have the bomb… And wait a second… The bomb’s not there because they’d have to have a rocket… It’s a suitcase bomb. You don’t need missiles. You can put a bomb in a suitcase… And it’s in Canada. Albanian terrorists have placed a suitcase bomb in Canada in an attempt to infiltrate it into the USA,”said Stanley Moss as portrayed by Dustin Hoffman.[vi]
The current presidential campaign has taught us Senator Clinton shares an adverse flaw with President Bush. They do not read. In August 2001, President Bush did not read the Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States.”
In 2002, Senator Clinton did not read the flawed National Intelligence Estimate’s report about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, nor did she read the National Intelligence Estimate in 2007. The report clearly stated, “Iran had halted a military program in 2003, though it continues to enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful uses.”[vii]
The Mediacracy is participating in the charade because they are asking questions based on a false premise. Furthermore, the media neglects to correct the presidential candidates when they make false assumptions that are based on a false premise.
Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, and is currently not a threat to launch a nuclear attack against Israel. It is extremely irresponsible for President Bush, Senator Clinton and the Mediacracy to declare Iran a nuclear threat.
Americans are uninformed. That is a problem. We do not take the time to research and investigate an issue. We ignore history. For example, in 1974 Pakistan Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutt promised to develop nuclear weapons even if it meant Pakistanis had to “eat grass” to achieve this goal. The urgency to develop nuclear weapons was in response to neighboring India successfully detonating a nuclear device. Pakistan and India are enemies. Pakistan was able to manufacture nuclear fuel using domestic uranium in 1980. Pakistan conducted the first of six nuclear weapons tests in 1998.[viii] It took Pakistan 24 years to develop nuclear weapons – without the consent of the international community.
The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003. Using Pakistan as a template, it would take Iran at least a decade to develop nuclear weapons. The nuclear threat against Israel would not be completed until 2019 – the last year in the second term of the Clinton presidency. But we are being led to believe Iran is currently capable of becoming a nuclear threat by a cynical presidential candidate and by a slothful media.
In January, President Clinton characterized Senator Obama’s position on the Iraq war as a fairy tale, but Senator Clinton’s apocalyptic assumptions about Iran launching a nuclear attack against Israel and her hypothetical decisive response is a true work of fiction. She can call it “Wag the Dog II – The Road to Armageddon.”
[i] “Transcript Democratic presidential debate 4/16/08,” The New York Times.
[ii] “Transcript Democratic presidential debate 4/16/08,” The New York Times.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 21, 2008.
[iv] Patrick Healy, “Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania,” New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[v] Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Calls For Military Shift in U.S. Focus on Terrorism,” New York Times August 2, 2007.
[vi] “Wag the Dog,” New Line Cinemas, 1998.
[vii] Steven Lee Myers, “An Assessment Jars a Foreign Policy Debate About Iran,” New York Times, December 4, 2007.
[viii] “Timeline: Pakistan’s Nuclear Program,” CNN, 2004.
Friday, May 02, 2008
A Damaged Country
Senator Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary by roughly ten percentage points. In the April 23rd op-ed article, the New York Times wrote that the primary “produced yet another inconclusive result.”[i] The New York Times is wrong. The results of the Pennsylvania primary produced a conclusive result. Senator Barack Obama will not win the general election in November. He is a damaged candidate.
There are several reasons Senator Obama lost the Pennsylvania primary. First, it was a closed primary. Republicans and independents were not able to participate in the Pennsylvania primary. Only registered Democrats could vote. The “state Democratic Party has added a remarkable 300,000 voters since January. Nearly half of these Democrats, according to the state board of elections, are new or previously unregistered voters lured by the excitement of the Clinton-Obama race. The other half are former Republicans and independents who switched to vote in the Democratic primary.”[ii] The majority of the new Democrats voted for Senator Obama. However, the new voters were only able to reduce Senator Clinton’s margin of victory.
Second, Senator Obama performed poorly during a televised Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Granted, some of the questions were ridiculous. The former communications director of the Clinton Administration and current moderator of This Week with George Stephanopoulos asked the Illinois Senator if he thought his former pastor Jeremiah Wright “loves America as much as you do,” and is the Reverend “as patriotic as you are.” Mr. Stephanopoulos also asked Senator Obama if he believed “Senator Clinton was honest about her past.”[iii]
Mr. Stephanopoulos wanted to ask Senator Obama what type of tree he would choose to be and why, but he thought the question would not generate controversy.
The former Clinton Administration hack was not the only person who asked stupid questions. ABC News tracked down a voter who was offended by Senator Obama’s inability to accessorize. “I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag,” said Nash McCabe from Latrobe, Pennsylvania. “I want to know why you don’t?”[iv]
ABC News was able to locate a person who would have asked Senator Obama why does he hate America, but doctors would not guarantee Charles Manson would take his anti psychotic medication before the debate.
Prompted by disingenuous Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Senator Obama a question regarding “the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970’s… Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”[v]
Mr. Stephanopoulos asked if Senator Obama agreed with the menacing rap group Public Enemy’s assertion that 911 is indeed a joke, but the question and answer were edited from the debate.
Parenthetically, this was the first presidential debate on free TV. The prior debates were on cable television. Free TV suggests more exposure. People who are bitter and cling to guns and religion are too poor to afford cable TV, therefore were denied the facility to witness prior debates.
The stupid questions point to a greater problem Senator Obama addressed during the debate in Philadelphia. The politics of distraction contaminated the Democratic presidential campaign.
The presidential campaign dragged interminably. The media ran out of stories to cover, therefore the Mediacracy started to focus and draw conclusions from juvenile issues, such as Senator Obama bad bowling performance. He can’t bowl, he is not a regular guy, therefore he is not qualified to be president.
On April 6, Senator Obama made a comment during a fundraiser in San Francisco. He tried to explain some of the challenges of his presidential campaign in “former coal and steel towns” and rural Pennsylvania. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and… the jobs have been gone now for twenty five years, and nothing has replaced them. It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,”[vi] said Senator Obama. This comment reinforced the Mediacracy’s latest narrative of Senator Obama being an arrogant, condescending politician.
During the April 10th edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews, the loquacious host spoke with disgraced MSNBC correspondent David Shuster about Senator Obama’s inability to connect with average Americans. Senator Obama “ is not that good at that – handshaking in a diner… Barack doesn’t seem to know how to do that right,” said Mr. Matthews. “He (Obama) doesn’t do that well,” said Mr. Shuster. Predictably, Mr. Matthews interrupted Mr. Shuster. “What’s so hard about doing a diner? I don’t get it. Why doesn’t he go in there and say, ‘Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night? Just some regular connection,”[vii] said Mr. Matthews.
Furthermore, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Shuster talked about Senator Obama’s perilous adventure in a diner while he campaigned in Indiana. Mr. Shuster described the scene to the motormouth host. Senator Obama was offered coffee. He declined the offer. Instead he asked for orange juice. “No,” said Mr. Matthews. The political talk show host was aghast. Mr. Shuster assured Mr. Matthews it was a true story, not an urban legend. “And it’s just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, ‘Here, have some coffee,’ you say, ‘Yes, thank you,’ and, ‘Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?’ You don’t just say, ‘No, I'll take orange juice,’ and then turn away and start shaking hands,” said Mr. Shuster. “You don’t ask for a substitute on the menu,”[viii] said Mr. Matthews.
Had Mr. Obama attended the Finishing School in Le Institut Villa Pierrefeu or Le Institut Alpin Videmanette in Switzerland as a young black man and learned the proper way to shake hands, or the art of ordering a beverage at a public establishment, or mastered the ability to knock down phallic pins at commercial sporting venue, or learned how to accessorize his wardrobe, or learned how to engage in conversation with the idle, ordinary, pedestrian folk from the heartland of America, then the Mediacracy would have labeled Senator Obama effete. Sometimes a black man just can’t win in America.
The Mainstream Media (MSM) labeled Senator Obama an elitist, someone who inherently cannot understand the problems of average Americans. Senator Obama is arrogant. He is condescending like the former governor of the ultra liberal state of Massachusetts and failed presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. Coincidently, both have un-American sounding names.
Like a four-year-old child with a new toy, Mr. Matthews clutched the elitist accusation. Mr. Matthews was interviewing the presumptive Republican nominee Senator McCain during the April 15th edition of Hardball. “We’ve had enough softball, Senator,” implying he was going to ask him a tough question. “It’s time for the show to start here… Let me ask you a tough one here… Is Barack Obama an elitist?,” asked Mr. Matthews. Senator McCain was grateful he was not asked to identify five differences between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims. “No. But I do believe that his statements were elitist,” said Senator McCain.
Initially, Senator Clinton was a victim of the Mainstream Media. She was portrayed as someone who was unlikable. People hate the way she talks, laughs, and the pantsuits she wears. Public opinion polls were used as evidence against her. The Mediacracy ridiculed her after she lost the Iowa Caucus. The Mainstream Media looked forward to writing her political obituary after the New Hampshire primary, but the Senator from New York by way of Arkansas managed to survive despite the attacks from the media.
Senator Clinton attempted to exploit Senator Obama’s inexperience and association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright during the presidential campaign. It affected her poll numbers, reducing her approval ratings below 40%. However, the elitism issue allowed Senator Clinton to demonize Senator Obama as someone who is “elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing.”[ix]
Senator Clinton is questioning Senator Obama’s toughness. “Considering his financial advantage, the question ought to be, why can’t he close the deal?” Mrs. Clinton said outside a polling place in a northern suburb of Philadelphia. “Why can’t he win in a state like this?”[x]
Senator Obama is unable to get votes from Senator Clinton’s core constituency. Her convincing primary victory was due to “women, older voters and less affluent and less educated voters; among white union members with no college education, she won almost three quarters of the vote, polling showed.”[xi] Senator Obama is unable to get sufficient support from Catholic voters.
The Clinton campaign and her surrogates have portrayed Senator Obama’s supporters as “the Gucci-wearing latte-drinking self-centered egotistical people.”[xii] Apparently, there are not enough of those people in Pennsylvania.
Senator Clinton recast herself as the granddaughter of a Pennsylvania factory worker. As a child, her grandfather taught her how to use a weapon, and she enjoys hunting. While campaigning in a bar, Senator Clinton drank a shot glass full of whisky with a beer chaser in order to appear ordinary.
Senator Obama attempted to remind voters that Senator Clinton was also labeled an elitist, but she is trying to portray herself as an average person, “talking like she’s Annie Oakley. Hillary Clinton’s out there like she’s on the duck blind every Sunday. She’s packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better.”[xiii] The Democratic presidential campaign has degraded into which candidate is most like the average voter.
The issue of race was always lurking in the background, but none of the prior primary contests offered any evidence of racism. Pennsylvania changed that. A math geek who studies exit polls would have “found stark evidence that Mr. Obama’s race could be a problem in the general election. Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 54 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them would vote for Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 16 percent said they would not vote at all.”[xiv]
In February, Pennsylvania Governor and Clinton super delegate Ed Rendell spoke about the Pennsylvania primary during an interview with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. “You’ve got some conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate,”said Mr. Rendell.[xv]
Usually voters will not admit to pollsters they are racists. However, their answers may indicate a predisposition towards racism. A Pew Poll indicated “white Democrats who don’t favor him are much more likely… to believe interracial dating is wrong, that immigrants pose a threat to American values and that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far.”[xvi]
Furthermore, “one in four white Democrats with a negative opinon of [Senator Obama] believes he is a Muslim.”[xvii]
Senator Obama campaigned in Pennsylvania for six weeks. He was behind by 19 points in the opinion polls prior to the primary. The charismatic Illinois Senator outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of 2 to 1. But Senator Obama was able to reduce Senator Clinton’s lead to ten percent in six weeks. Given ample time and sufficient resources, the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination was unable to convince Pennsylvanians he is a better candidate for president than Senator Clinton. “Clinton and Obama have virtually identical stances on the issues, but it still has the power to divide voters along the lines of race.”[xviii]
Race becoming an issue is not a surprise. After the New York primary, I talked with my father about the presidential campaign. He spoke of a community center he frequents and meets with other Hispanics and they were talking about the Senator Obama. The majority of the people at the community center said they would never vote for a black man for president. They were not the stereotypical white, southern bigots who get angry at mentioning civil rights. They were minorities, immigrants in the United States who resent Barack Obama’s candidacy. My father was disappointed and so was I.
Senator Obama’s enthusiastic support for president made me believe race was not an issue and the United States finally grasped Dr Martin Luther King’s dream of a better America, but the enthusiasm made me forget how deep the issue of racism penetrates the fabric of our country. Reminded that people from my own ethnic background are racists was demoralizing. It was like finding out there was no such thing as Santa Claus and hope is futile.
On second thought, Senator Obama is not a damaged candidate. The United States is a damaged country.
[i] “The Low Road to Victory,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[ii] Ari Berman, “Pennsylvania’s Obamicans,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[iii] Transcript Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, The New York Times, April 16, 2008.
[iv] Transcript Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, The New York Times, April 16, 2008.
[v] Transcript Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, The New York Times, April 16, 2008.
[vi] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[vii] “On Hardball, Matthews and Shuster Critiqued Obama’s Weird Beverage Selection at Indiana Diner,” Media Matters for America, April, 11, 2008.
[viii] “On Hardball, Matthews and Shuster Critiqued Obama’s Weird Beverage Selection at Indiana Diner,” Media Matters for America, April, 11, 2008.
[ix] John M Broder, “Democrats Wrangle Over Words and Beliefs,” The New York Times, April 14, 2008.
[x] Adam Nagourney, “The Bruising Will Go On for the Party, Too,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[xi] Patrick Healy, “Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[xii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 30, 2008.
[xiii] John M Broder, “Democrats Wrangle Over Words and Beliefs,” The New York Times, April 14, 2008.
[xiv] Adam Nagourney, “The Bruising Will Go On for the Party, Too,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[xv] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[xvi] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[xvii] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[xviii] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
There are several reasons Senator Obama lost the Pennsylvania primary. First, it was a closed primary. Republicans and independents were not able to participate in the Pennsylvania primary. Only registered Democrats could vote. The “state Democratic Party has added a remarkable 300,000 voters since January. Nearly half of these Democrats, according to the state board of elections, are new or previously unregistered voters lured by the excitement of the Clinton-Obama race. The other half are former Republicans and independents who switched to vote in the Democratic primary.”[ii] The majority of the new Democrats voted for Senator Obama. However, the new voters were only able to reduce Senator Clinton’s margin of victory.
Second, Senator Obama performed poorly during a televised Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Granted, some of the questions were ridiculous. The former communications director of the Clinton Administration and current moderator of This Week with George Stephanopoulos asked the Illinois Senator if he thought his former pastor Jeremiah Wright “loves America as much as you do,” and is the Reverend “as patriotic as you are.” Mr. Stephanopoulos also asked Senator Obama if he believed “Senator Clinton was honest about her past.”[iii]
Mr. Stephanopoulos wanted to ask Senator Obama what type of tree he would choose to be and why, but he thought the question would not generate controversy.
The former Clinton Administration hack was not the only person who asked stupid questions. ABC News tracked down a voter who was offended by Senator Obama’s inability to accessorize. “I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag,” said Nash McCabe from Latrobe, Pennsylvania. “I want to know why you don’t?”[iv]
ABC News was able to locate a person who would have asked Senator Obama why does he hate America, but doctors would not guarantee Charles Manson would take his anti psychotic medication before the debate.
Prompted by disingenuous Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Senator Obama a question regarding “the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970’s… Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”[v]
Mr. Stephanopoulos asked if Senator Obama agreed with the menacing rap group Public Enemy’s assertion that 911 is indeed a joke, but the question and answer were edited from the debate.
Parenthetically, this was the first presidential debate on free TV. The prior debates were on cable television. Free TV suggests more exposure. People who are bitter and cling to guns and religion are too poor to afford cable TV, therefore were denied the facility to witness prior debates.
The stupid questions point to a greater problem Senator Obama addressed during the debate in Philadelphia. The politics of distraction contaminated the Democratic presidential campaign.
The presidential campaign dragged interminably. The media ran out of stories to cover, therefore the Mediacracy started to focus and draw conclusions from juvenile issues, such as Senator Obama bad bowling performance. He can’t bowl, he is not a regular guy, therefore he is not qualified to be president.
On April 6, Senator Obama made a comment during a fundraiser in San Francisco. He tried to explain some of the challenges of his presidential campaign in “former coal and steel towns” and rural Pennsylvania. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and… the jobs have been gone now for twenty five years, and nothing has replaced them. It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,”[vi] said Senator Obama. This comment reinforced the Mediacracy’s latest narrative of Senator Obama being an arrogant, condescending politician.
During the April 10th edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews, the loquacious host spoke with disgraced MSNBC correspondent David Shuster about Senator Obama’s inability to connect with average Americans. Senator Obama “ is not that good at that – handshaking in a diner… Barack doesn’t seem to know how to do that right,” said Mr. Matthews. “He (Obama) doesn’t do that well,” said Mr. Shuster. Predictably, Mr. Matthews interrupted Mr. Shuster. “What’s so hard about doing a diner? I don’t get it. Why doesn’t he go in there and say, ‘Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night? Just some regular connection,”[vii] said Mr. Matthews.
Furthermore, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Shuster talked about Senator Obama’s perilous adventure in a diner while he campaigned in Indiana. Mr. Shuster described the scene to the motormouth host. Senator Obama was offered coffee. He declined the offer. Instead he asked for orange juice. “No,” said Mr. Matthews. The political talk show host was aghast. Mr. Shuster assured Mr. Matthews it was a true story, not an urban legend. “And it’s just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, ‘Here, have some coffee,’ you say, ‘Yes, thank you,’ and, ‘Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?’ You don’t just say, ‘No, I'll take orange juice,’ and then turn away and start shaking hands,” said Mr. Shuster. “You don’t ask for a substitute on the menu,”[viii] said Mr. Matthews.
Had Mr. Obama attended the Finishing School in Le Institut Villa Pierrefeu or Le Institut Alpin Videmanette in Switzerland as a young black man and learned the proper way to shake hands, or the art of ordering a beverage at a public establishment, or mastered the ability to knock down phallic pins at commercial sporting venue, or learned how to accessorize his wardrobe, or learned how to engage in conversation with the idle, ordinary, pedestrian folk from the heartland of America, then the Mediacracy would have labeled Senator Obama effete. Sometimes a black man just can’t win in America.
The Mainstream Media (MSM) labeled Senator Obama an elitist, someone who inherently cannot understand the problems of average Americans. Senator Obama is arrogant. He is condescending like the former governor of the ultra liberal state of Massachusetts and failed presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. Coincidently, both have un-American sounding names.
Like a four-year-old child with a new toy, Mr. Matthews clutched the elitist accusation. Mr. Matthews was interviewing the presumptive Republican nominee Senator McCain during the April 15th edition of Hardball. “We’ve had enough softball, Senator,” implying he was going to ask him a tough question. “It’s time for the show to start here… Let me ask you a tough one here… Is Barack Obama an elitist?,” asked Mr. Matthews. Senator McCain was grateful he was not asked to identify five differences between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims. “No. But I do believe that his statements were elitist,” said Senator McCain.
Initially, Senator Clinton was a victim of the Mainstream Media. She was portrayed as someone who was unlikable. People hate the way she talks, laughs, and the pantsuits she wears. Public opinion polls were used as evidence against her. The Mediacracy ridiculed her after she lost the Iowa Caucus. The Mainstream Media looked forward to writing her political obituary after the New Hampshire primary, but the Senator from New York by way of Arkansas managed to survive despite the attacks from the media.
Senator Clinton attempted to exploit Senator Obama’s inexperience and association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright during the presidential campaign. It affected her poll numbers, reducing her approval ratings below 40%. However, the elitism issue allowed Senator Clinton to demonize Senator Obama as someone who is “elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing.”[ix]
Senator Clinton is questioning Senator Obama’s toughness. “Considering his financial advantage, the question ought to be, why can’t he close the deal?” Mrs. Clinton said outside a polling place in a northern suburb of Philadelphia. “Why can’t he win in a state like this?”[x]
Senator Obama is unable to get votes from Senator Clinton’s core constituency. Her convincing primary victory was due to “women, older voters and less affluent and less educated voters; among white union members with no college education, she won almost three quarters of the vote, polling showed.”[xi] Senator Obama is unable to get sufficient support from Catholic voters.
The Clinton campaign and her surrogates have portrayed Senator Obama’s supporters as “the Gucci-wearing latte-drinking self-centered egotistical people.”[xii] Apparently, there are not enough of those people in Pennsylvania.
Senator Clinton recast herself as the granddaughter of a Pennsylvania factory worker. As a child, her grandfather taught her how to use a weapon, and she enjoys hunting. While campaigning in a bar, Senator Clinton drank a shot glass full of whisky with a beer chaser in order to appear ordinary.
Senator Obama attempted to remind voters that Senator Clinton was also labeled an elitist, but she is trying to portray herself as an average person, “talking like she’s Annie Oakley. Hillary Clinton’s out there like she’s on the duck blind every Sunday. She’s packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better.”[xiii] The Democratic presidential campaign has degraded into which candidate is most like the average voter.
The issue of race was always lurking in the background, but none of the prior primary contests offered any evidence of racism. Pennsylvania changed that. A math geek who studies exit polls would have “found stark evidence that Mr. Obama’s race could be a problem in the general election. Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 54 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them would vote for Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 16 percent said they would not vote at all.”[xiv]
In February, Pennsylvania Governor and Clinton super delegate Ed Rendell spoke about the Pennsylvania primary during an interview with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. “You’ve got some conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate,”said Mr. Rendell.[xv]
Usually voters will not admit to pollsters they are racists. However, their answers may indicate a predisposition towards racism. A Pew Poll indicated “white Democrats who don’t favor him are much more likely… to believe interracial dating is wrong, that immigrants pose a threat to American values and that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far.”[xvi]
Furthermore, “one in four white Democrats with a negative opinon of [Senator Obama] believes he is a Muslim.”[xvii]
Senator Obama campaigned in Pennsylvania for six weeks. He was behind by 19 points in the opinion polls prior to the primary. The charismatic Illinois Senator outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of 2 to 1. But Senator Obama was able to reduce Senator Clinton’s lead to ten percent in six weeks. Given ample time and sufficient resources, the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination was unable to convince Pennsylvanians he is a better candidate for president than Senator Clinton. “Clinton and Obama have virtually identical stances on the issues, but it still has the power to divide voters along the lines of race.”[xviii]
Race becoming an issue is not a surprise. After the New York primary, I talked with my father about the presidential campaign. He spoke of a community center he frequents and meets with other Hispanics and they were talking about the Senator Obama. The majority of the people at the community center said they would never vote for a black man for president. They were not the stereotypical white, southern bigots who get angry at mentioning civil rights. They were minorities, immigrants in the United States who resent Barack Obama’s candidacy. My father was disappointed and so was I.
Senator Obama’s enthusiastic support for president made me believe race was not an issue and the United States finally grasped Dr Martin Luther King’s dream of a better America, but the enthusiasm made me forget how deep the issue of racism penetrates the fabric of our country. Reminded that people from my own ethnic background are racists was demoralizing. It was like finding out there was no such thing as Santa Claus and hope is futile.
On second thought, Senator Obama is not a damaged candidate. The United States is a damaged country.
[i] “The Low Road to Victory,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[ii] Ari Berman, “Pennsylvania’s Obamicans,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[iii] Transcript Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, The New York Times, April 16, 2008.
[iv] Transcript Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, The New York Times, April 16, 2008.
[v] Transcript Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, The New York Times, April 16, 2008.
[vi] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[vii] “On Hardball, Matthews and Shuster Critiqued Obama’s Weird Beverage Selection at Indiana Diner,” Media Matters for America, April, 11, 2008.
[viii] “On Hardball, Matthews and Shuster Critiqued Obama’s Weird Beverage Selection at Indiana Diner,” Media Matters for America, April, 11, 2008.
[ix] John M Broder, “Democrats Wrangle Over Words and Beliefs,” The New York Times, April 14, 2008.
[x] Adam Nagourney, “The Bruising Will Go On for the Party, Too,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[xi] Patrick Healy, “Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[xii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 30, 2008.
[xiii] John M Broder, “Democrats Wrangle Over Words and Beliefs,” The New York Times, April 14, 2008.
[xiv] Adam Nagourney, “The Bruising Will Go On for the Party, Too,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[xv] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[xvi] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[xvii] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[xviii] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
False Premise
It is a false statement made by informed people often enough to be presumed to be true; Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States withdraws its military presence from the beleaguered Middle Eastern country.
In an interview with the ignorant Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Vice President Dick Cheney said, “If Al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of an assistant oil resource. Iraq has almost 100 billion barrels of reserves, producing 2.5 to three million barrels a day. You take a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda and give it that kind of revenue, there‘s no telling the amount of trouble they could get into.”[i]
Later on in the interview, the vice president said, “and if a great white shark had balls, it would be a man.” Both assumptions are unlikely.
Arizona Senator and Republican presidential nominee John McCain asked U.S Commander in Iraq General David Petraeus during a Senate hearing if Al Qaeda was a major threat in Iraq. General Petraeus testified, “It is a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say 15 months ago.”[ii] Fifteen months ago, Al Qaeda was a major threat, but now Al Qaeda is a major threat. The first casualty of war is the truth. The second casualty of war is grammar. The war in Iraq has greatly improved our ability to manhandle the English language.
The Mainstream Media participates in this deception. The issue of Al Qaeda’s ability to take over Iraq strained its way into a Democratic presidential debate on February 26, 2008. During the debate, Tim Russert, the distinguished but overrated moderator of the political talk show Meet the Press, asked Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama a hypothetical question regarding Iraq after American troops have successfully withdrawn from the besieged Middle Eastern country. “If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in totality, and Al Qaeda resurges, and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right in your mind as American president to reinvade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?”[iii]
Senator Clinton attempted to answer the question by saying, “You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe…”[iv]
Mr. Russert rudely interrupted the Senator. He had the Senator from New York in his crosshairs. “But this is reality,” he said. Senator Clinton answered, “No, well, it isn’t reality. You are making lots of different hypothetical assessments.”[v]
Senator Clinton is a sophisticated woman who would not use harsh language in a public setting. However, the lovely Mona Lisa Vito, as portrayed by the beautiful and talented Academy Award winning actress Marisa Tomei in the movie “My Cousin Vinnie,” would have said in her charming Brooklyn accent that she could not answer the hypothetical question posed by Mr. Russert. Mr. Russert would have grinned and said, “Aha! You can’t answer the question because you don’t know the answer.” Ms Vito would have said, “The reason I can’t answer your question is because it’s a bullshit question!” Thus wiping the smug look off Tim Russert’s face.
Indeed, Tim Russert. It is not reality. You are making up a lot of hypothetical assumptions.
Mr. Russert’s hypothetical question is based on a false premise, that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling Iraq, a falsity perpetuated by the Bush Administration with the assistance from the Mainstream Media (MSM). The Bush Administration and the Mainstream Media feign ignorance of Iraqi history and current demographic data in order to continually perpetrate the rationale for maintaining a military presence in Iraq.
President Bush’s ignorance is understandable because he does not read. If the incompetent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice walked into the Oval Office to inform the clueless president that Cardassians (Star Trek reference) were threatening to invade Antarctica, our intrepid leader would immediately dispatch troops to Alaska to repel the attack.
But Mr. Russert is a journalist, or at least he portrays one on television. He should know better than to spread a falsehood during a presidential debate.
The correct answer to the question is to challenge Mr. Russert’s assumption by asking him if he honestly believes Al Qaeda is capable of defeating the collective will of 28 million people. The best way to answer Mr. Russert’s question is volley the facts right back to him.
The total population of Iraq is 28.5 million. Ethnically, Iraq consists of Arabs (64.7%), Kurds (23%), Azerbaijani (5.6 %), Turks (1.2%), Persian (1.1%), and other ethnic groups (4.4%). Iraqi religious affiliations are as follows: 62% Shia Muslim, 34% Sunni Muslim, and others.[vi]
Al Qaeda fighters are foreigners, not local Iraqi’s. Estimates of the number of Al Qaeda in Iraq range from 850 to more than a thousand, according to the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Demographically, less than 1% (.0000357% to be exact) of the Iraqi population consists of Al Qaeda fighters. There are probably more Jehovah Witnesses in Iraq than Al Qaeda fighters.
Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi Muslim sect that follows a stricter form of Islam. Wahhabists and Shia are enemies. Wahhabists believe Shia Muslims deviated from the true path of Islam, therefore Shia are heretics who should be put to death unless they return to the true path of Islam.
The Kurds reject Al Qaeda’s perspective of Islam. “Most Kurds are Sunni Muslim, but generally have little religious zeal. They drink hard and dance harder and rarely pray five times a day.”[vii] I’m guessing Wahhabists would not approve of Muslims acting like college frat boys on spring break.
The Sunni Muslims in the Anbar province rejected Al Qaeda oppressive tactics, and formed alliances with the United States military to expel Al Qaeda. It was not the promise of freedom that convinced the Iraqis in Anbar to assist the Americans. Instead, it was the lure of cash. The Bush Administration is paying Iraqis in Anbar not to engage our soldiers.
If you accept the Bush Administration’s argument that Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States military prematurely withdraws from Iraq, or Vice President Cheney’s contention that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling the oil fields in Iraq, or Mr. Russert’s premise of Al Qaeda resurging in Iraq if US troops withdraw, then you are arguing 850 to a thousand foreigners armed with machine guns and suicide bombers are capable of taking over a country.
Incidentally, a report from the office of the vice president indicated a motorcycle gang from southern California is also capable of capturing Iraq.
Not everyone shares the Bush Administration’s pessimism. In a message to the European Union in Belgium, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, “We are today more confident than any time before, that we are close to the point where we can declare victory against al Qaeda and its allies.”[viii]
If you accept the premise that 1,000 men can take over a country of 28 million people, then you are arguing the United States military (140,000 troops) and the independent contractors (estimate 150,000) are abject failures. One thousand mercenaries can succeed in controlling Iraq, but the “Coalition of the Willing” is incapable of securing the country.
Al Qaeda cannot control the oil fields because 1,000 foreign fighters are incapable of controlling large segments of Iraq. Capturing the oil fields would involve repelling the Iraqi military from the oil fields, extracting the oil from the ground, loading the oil in tankers, selling the oil on the open market, and finding a buyer. It could happen in the movies, except that James Bond would prevail in the end.
Not to say that 1,000 mercenaries are incapable of causing mayhem in Iraq. On September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers created havoc in New York City and Washington DC.
But for the media to hype the threat of 1,000 fighters in order to justify the Bush Administration’s military occupation of Iraq is unpardonable.
It is understandable for the average voter to ask such a question because the public is factually unaware of the status of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The average American probably does not know the difference between a Sunni Muslim and a can of Sunkist orange soda pop. It’s not like voters are asking a question they know the answer to like what is the capital of Vermont – which is…?
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are exploiting our collective ignorance regarding Iraq. An attendee of the Christians United for Israel Tour who was actually arguing for more military intervention in the Middle East said, “If we move out of Iraq, the Muslims are going to take over and they are going to follow us here.”[ix] First, Muslims are the majority in Iraq. It is their country. Second, they cannot follow us here. They do not have the means of transporting thousands of soldiers to the United States, unless they decide to launch a massive invasion by swimming from Iraq to the United States.
Al Qaeda will fail to control Iraq, if the threat to take over Iraq ever existed, for the same reason the “Coalition of the Willing” is unable to secure Iraq. It is because Al Qaeda and the soldiers stationed in Iraq are foreigners. Iraqis will not submit to the will of foreigners, as would any other people who are being subjected to a military occupation from a foreign country.
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are acting in concert to assert the falsehood that Al Qaeda is capable of taking over the country of Iraq. It happened before. The Bush Administration perpetrated a fraud on the American people when it argued Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security. The Mainstream Media were willing accomplices because the false evidence presented by the Bush Administration was not questioned.
There was sufficient evidence available before the war to contradict the claims made by the Bush Administration. In an interview with Bill Moyers’, 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon said, “We only knew that the connection the Administration was making between Saddam and Al Qaeda was very tenuous at best and that the argument it was making over the aluminum tubes seemed highly dubious. We knew these things.”[x]
But the Bush Administration also duped the Mainstream Media. In his infamous appearance on Meet the Press on September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney said, “There’s a story in the New York Times this morning, this is – and I want to attribute this to the Times. I don’t want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but… it’s now public that, in fact, [Saddam Hussein] has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.”[xi] Vice President Cheney argued the story about Saddam Hussein attempting to acquire aluminum tubes must be true because the story appeared in the New York Times. If the Times printed it, then it must be true. Unbeknownst to the public, the Bush Administration leaked that story to the New York Times.
Displaying brilliant journalistic instinct, Tim Russert sat by his phone, like a high school geek, waiting for someone to call him to counter the Bush Administration’s argument for war. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Tim Russert said, “To this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.”[xii] Mr. Russert lacked the initiative to expose the Bush Administration’s false rationale for invading Iraq.
The Mainstream Media is as guilty of war crimes as is the Bush Administration because it neglected the evidence Saddam Hussein was not the mortal threat before the war. Furthermore, the Mediacracy perpetuates the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq deception, thereby continuing the justification for war in Iraq.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 11, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 8, 2008.
[iii] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[iv] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[v] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[vi] Encyclopedia Britannica, “Iraq Fact Sheet.”
[vii] Edward Wong, “In a Twist of History, Kurds Patrol Baghdad,” New York Times, April 24, 2007.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 17, 2008.
[ix] Max Blumenthal, “Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour.”
[x] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xi] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xii] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
In an interview with the ignorant Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Vice President Dick Cheney said, “If Al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of an assistant oil resource. Iraq has almost 100 billion barrels of reserves, producing 2.5 to three million barrels a day. You take a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda and give it that kind of revenue, there‘s no telling the amount of trouble they could get into.”[i]
Later on in the interview, the vice president said, “and if a great white shark had balls, it would be a man.” Both assumptions are unlikely.
Arizona Senator and Republican presidential nominee John McCain asked U.S Commander in Iraq General David Petraeus during a Senate hearing if Al Qaeda was a major threat in Iraq. General Petraeus testified, “It is a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say 15 months ago.”[ii] Fifteen months ago, Al Qaeda was a major threat, but now Al Qaeda is a major threat. The first casualty of war is the truth. The second casualty of war is grammar. The war in Iraq has greatly improved our ability to manhandle the English language.
The Mainstream Media participates in this deception. The issue of Al Qaeda’s ability to take over Iraq strained its way into a Democratic presidential debate on February 26, 2008. During the debate, Tim Russert, the distinguished but overrated moderator of the political talk show Meet the Press, asked Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama a hypothetical question regarding Iraq after American troops have successfully withdrawn from the besieged Middle Eastern country. “If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in totality, and Al Qaeda resurges, and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right in your mind as American president to reinvade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?”[iii]
Senator Clinton attempted to answer the question by saying, “You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe…”[iv]
Mr. Russert rudely interrupted the Senator. He had the Senator from New York in his crosshairs. “But this is reality,” he said. Senator Clinton answered, “No, well, it isn’t reality. You are making lots of different hypothetical assessments.”[v]
Senator Clinton is a sophisticated woman who would not use harsh language in a public setting. However, the lovely Mona Lisa Vito, as portrayed by the beautiful and talented Academy Award winning actress Marisa Tomei in the movie “My Cousin Vinnie,” would have said in her charming Brooklyn accent that she could not answer the hypothetical question posed by Mr. Russert. Mr. Russert would have grinned and said, “Aha! You can’t answer the question because you don’t know the answer.” Ms Vito would have said, “The reason I can’t answer your question is because it’s a bullshit question!” Thus wiping the smug look off Tim Russert’s face.
Indeed, Tim Russert. It is not reality. You are making up a lot of hypothetical assumptions.
Mr. Russert’s hypothetical question is based on a false premise, that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling Iraq, a falsity perpetuated by the Bush Administration with the assistance from the Mainstream Media (MSM). The Bush Administration and the Mainstream Media feign ignorance of Iraqi history and current demographic data in order to continually perpetrate the rationale for maintaining a military presence in Iraq.
President Bush’s ignorance is understandable because he does not read. If the incompetent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice walked into the Oval Office to inform the clueless president that Cardassians (Star Trek reference) were threatening to invade Antarctica, our intrepid leader would immediately dispatch troops to Alaska to repel the attack.
But Mr. Russert is a journalist, or at least he portrays one on television. He should know better than to spread a falsehood during a presidential debate.
The correct answer to the question is to challenge Mr. Russert’s assumption by asking him if he honestly believes Al Qaeda is capable of defeating the collective will of 28 million people. The best way to answer Mr. Russert’s question is volley the facts right back to him.
The total population of Iraq is 28.5 million. Ethnically, Iraq consists of Arabs (64.7%), Kurds (23%), Azerbaijani (5.6 %), Turks (1.2%), Persian (1.1%), and other ethnic groups (4.4%). Iraqi religious affiliations are as follows: 62% Shia Muslim, 34% Sunni Muslim, and others.[vi]
Al Qaeda fighters are foreigners, not local Iraqi’s. Estimates of the number of Al Qaeda in Iraq range from 850 to more than a thousand, according to the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Demographically, less than 1% (.0000357% to be exact) of the Iraqi population consists of Al Qaeda fighters. There are probably more Jehovah Witnesses in Iraq than Al Qaeda fighters.
Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi Muslim sect that follows a stricter form of Islam. Wahhabists and Shia are enemies. Wahhabists believe Shia Muslims deviated from the true path of Islam, therefore Shia are heretics who should be put to death unless they return to the true path of Islam.
The Kurds reject Al Qaeda’s perspective of Islam. “Most Kurds are Sunni Muslim, but generally have little religious zeal. They drink hard and dance harder and rarely pray five times a day.”[vii] I’m guessing Wahhabists would not approve of Muslims acting like college frat boys on spring break.
The Sunni Muslims in the Anbar province rejected Al Qaeda oppressive tactics, and formed alliances with the United States military to expel Al Qaeda. It was not the promise of freedom that convinced the Iraqis in Anbar to assist the Americans. Instead, it was the lure of cash. The Bush Administration is paying Iraqis in Anbar not to engage our soldiers.
If you accept the Bush Administration’s argument that Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States military prematurely withdraws from Iraq, or Vice President Cheney’s contention that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling the oil fields in Iraq, or Mr. Russert’s premise of Al Qaeda resurging in Iraq if US troops withdraw, then you are arguing 850 to a thousand foreigners armed with machine guns and suicide bombers are capable of taking over a country.
Incidentally, a report from the office of the vice president indicated a motorcycle gang from southern California is also capable of capturing Iraq.
Not everyone shares the Bush Administration’s pessimism. In a message to the European Union in Belgium, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, “We are today more confident than any time before, that we are close to the point where we can declare victory against al Qaeda and its allies.”[viii]
If you accept the premise that 1,000 men can take over a country of 28 million people, then you are arguing the United States military (140,000 troops) and the independent contractors (estimate 150,000) are abject failures. One thousand mercenaries can succeed in controlling Iraq, but the “Coalition of the Willing” is incapable of securing the country.
Al Qaeda cannot control the oil fields because 1,000 foreign fighters are incapable of controlling large segments of Iraq. Capturing the oil fields would involve repelling the Iraqi military from the oil fields, extracting the oil from the ground, loading the oil in tankers, selling the oil on the open market, and finding a buyer. It could happen in the movies, except that James Bond would prevail in the end.
Not to say that 1,000 mercenaries are incapable of causing mayhem in Iraq. On September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers created havoc in New York City and Washington DC.
But for the media to hype the threat of 1,000 fighters in order to justify the Bush Administration’s military occupation of Iraq is unpardonable.
It is understandable for the average voter to ask such a question because the public is factually unaware of the status of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The average American probably does not know the difference between a Sunni Muslim and a can of Sunkist orange soda pop. It’s not like voters are asking a question they know the answer to like what is the capital of Vermont – which is…?
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are exploiting our collective ignorance regarding Iraq. An attendee of the Christians United for Israel Tour who was actually arguing for more military intervention in the Middle East said, “If we move out of Iraq, the Muslims are going to take over and they are going to follow us here.”[ix] First, Muslims are the majority in Iraq. It is their country. Second, they cannot follow us here. They do not have the means of transporting thousands of soldiers to the United States, unless they decide to launch a massive invasion by swimming from Iraq to the United States.
Al Qaeda will fail to control Iraq, if the threat to take over Iraq ever existed, for the same reason the “Coalition of the Willing” is unable to secure Iraq. It is because Al Qaeda and the soldiers stationed in Iraq are foreigners. Iraqis will not submit to the will of foreigners, as would any other people who are being subjected to a military occupation from a foreign country.
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are acting in concert to assert the falsehood that Al Qaeda is capable of taking over the country of Iraq. It happened before. The Bush Administration perpetrated a fraud on the American people when it argued Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security. The Mainstream Media were willing accomplices because the false evidence presented by the Bush Administration was not questioned.
There was sufficient evidence available before the war to contradict the claims made by the Bush Administration. In an interview with Bill Moyers’, 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon said, “We only knew that the connection the Administration was making between Saddam and Al Qaeda was very tenuous at best and that the argument it was making over the aluminum tubes seemed highly dubious. We knew these things.”[x]
But the Bush Administration also duped the Mainstream Media. In his infamous appearance on Meet the Press on September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney said, “There’s a story in the New York Times this morning, this is – and I want to attribute this to the Times. I don’t want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but… it’s now public that, in fact, [Saddam Hussein] has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.”[xi] Vice President Cheney argued the story about Saddam Hussein attempting to acquire aluminum tubes must be true because the story appeared in the New York Times. If the Times printed it, then it must be true. Unbeknownst to the public, the Bush Administration leaked that story to the New York Times.
Displaying brilliant journalistic instinct, Tim Russert sat by his phone, like a high school geek, waiting for someone to call him to counter the Bush Administration’s argument for war. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Tim Russert said, “To this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.”[xii] Mr. Russert lacked the initiative to expose the Bush Administration’s false rationale for invading Iraq.
The Mainstream Media is as guilty of war crimes as is the Bush Administration because it neglected the evidence Saddam Hussein was not the mortal threat before the war. Furthermore, the Mediacracy perpetuates the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq deception, thereby continuing the justification for war in Iraq.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 11, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 8, 2008.
[iii] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[iv] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[v] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[vi] Encyclopedia Britannica, “Iraq Fact Sheet.”
[vii] Edward Wong, “In a Twist of History, Kurds Patrol Baghdad,” New York Times, April 24, 2007.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 17, 2008.
[ix] Max Blumenthal, “Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour.”
[x] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xi] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xii] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
A Process Compromised
When asked during the HBO show “Real Time with Bill Maher” about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s success in recent Democratic primaries, Fox News pollster, conservative political consultant, and Republican loyalist Frank Luntz indicated there were fives reasons accounting for Senator Obama’s accomplishment. Mr. Luntz cleverly called the reasons “The 5 M’s.”[i]
First is money because Senator Obama raised the most money. Second is message because the Illinois Senator’s message of hope captured the imagination of the electorate.
It was the third “M” that caught my attention – Malice. The conservative pollster explained registered republican voters were voting in open primaries for Senator Obama in order to cause mischief in the Democratic nomination process.
The third “M” was a reminder of a conversation between Robert Redford and Hal Holbrook in the great movie “All the President’s Men” regarding the “infiltration of the Democrats.”
Mr. Holbrook, portraying the mysterious White House insider Deep Throat, described the methods used by the Nixon Administration to sabotage the Democratic Party. In a dark, secluded parking garage, Deep Throat said to Bob Woodward, “They were frightened of Muskie and look who got destroyed. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they’re running against. They bugged. They followed people. Fake press leaks. Fake letters. They cancelled Democratic campaign rallies. They investigated Democratic private lives. They planted spies, stole documents and on and on.”[ii]
Disgraced former President Richard M Nixon was traumatized by his narrow defeat in the 1960 presidential election to the handsome and charismatic Massachusetts Senator John F Kennedy. In Nixon's psychologically scarred mind, the best way to insure victory and prevent further trauma was to rig the nomination process of the opposing party.
Nixon left two lasting legacies in electoral politics in the United States. First is the use of the “Southern Strategy,” a blatant attempt to exploit racial anxieties of southern, white Democrats, thus siphoning votes from the Democratic Party. Second, willfully sabotaging the nominating process in the Democratic Party. Both strategies are still used by the Republican Party.
An assessment of recent Democratic presidential nomination campaigns offers proof of the Republican Party’s nefarious activities. In 2004, former Vermont governor Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination before a single ballot was cast. He was considered the front-runner because the former Governor from Vermont raised the most campaign funds. The central issue of his candidacy was his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Conservatives quickly labeled Governor Dean an extreme liberal whose political views are in sharp contrast with the values of Americans. But Dean was running against the war in Iraq – an unnecessary war initiated over fictitious reasons by a fallacious President. It was not in the Republican Party’s best interest to run against an antiwar candidate.
After a disappointing third place finish in the Iowa Caucus, Governor Dean attempted to rally his disillusioned supporters with a rousing speech. Except that Governor Dean was a little too enthusiastic. He concluded his concession speech with an exuberant “BYAW!!!” The media replayed what became known as the “Dean Scream” over and over again. Democrats became disenchanted with the crazy, red-faced liberal from Vermont.
Americans find such exuberance distasteful in a presidential candidate; however not knowing the names of foreign leaders is acceptable. Foreign leaders are foreigners and in America nobody cares about foreigners.
However, the Republican Party still needed a beatable opponent. The next best thing to a liberal from Vermont was a liberal from Massachusetts. As a state, Massachusetts is America’s patsy, forever obliviously wearing a “Kick Me” sign carefully pasted on its back.
Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam War credentials were a significant problem considering he was running against the two virtual draft dodgers, President George Bush and Vice President Dick (I had other priorities) Cheney, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth eventually torpedoed Senator Kerry’s chances of becoming president.
In 1992, the Republican Party was probably salivating at the chance to run against a draft dodging, womanizing liberal from a small, indistinguishable southern state. However, Texas billionaire Ross Perot siphoned votes from President Bush and the Republicans lost the presidency to serial womanizer Governor Bill Clinton.
In 1988, the Democratic Party nominated former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. However, the front-runner for the nomination was former Colorado Senator Gary Hart – who lost the Democratic nomination to former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984.
Senator Hart’s candidacy dropped dead after the Miami Herald published a picture of the amorous Senator with a lovely woman, who was not his wife, on his lap.
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was another strong candidate whose candidacy did not survive an alleged scandal. It was disclosed that Senator Biden was lifting passages from a speech made by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock in his own speeches. Senator Biden was forced to drop out of the presidential race.
Governor Dukakis was an attractive candidate to run against. He was the former governor of Massachusetts, also known to conservatives as the most liberal state in America. To conservatives, liberalism is just another word for evil. Massachusetts has such a negative connotation in conservative politics that former Governor Mitt Romney often refused to name the state he served in. Instead, he used euphemisms to describe the state; such as I was the governor of a difficult state.
Governor Dukakis was attacked during the presidential campaign because he was against laws mandating the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as governor he supported prison furloughs, and he failed to clean up the environmental disaster in Boston Harbor.
Governor Dukakis’ was not only an easy candidate to run against, but he also provided an excuse to use the “Southern Strategy” against the Democrats. It was the prison furlough issue that was especially damaging once a commercial of a menacing black man named Willie Horton began circulating on television. What better way to scare white people to death than to introduce the possibility of a Democratic president releasing angry black men from prison who will rape and kill white women upon tasting freedom.
Governor Dukakis was such a weak candidate; the Republicans did not even have use the Governor’s Greek ancestry against him, but it does not mean the Republicans would not be incapable of using such tactics in the future.
Three out of the last four Democratic nominees fit a profile the Republicans are comfortable running against, beatable liberals with heavy baggage.
Senator Barack Obama developed a sizable lead in the Democratic nomination process by vaulting over the inevitable Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama accomplished this feat by mobilizing young voters who are participating in the nominating process for the first time. In addition, Obama has attracted independents and Republicans. In open primaries, 57% of registered republicans crossed party lines and voted for Senator Obama.
If Frank Luntz’s assertion that Republicans are voting for Senator Obama simply to cause mischief in the Democratic Party is true, then the Republican Party is involved in a blatant attempt to sabotage the Democratic Party. Republican mischief is a threat to the integrity of the nomination process. The method of nominating a candidate has been compromised.
If a Republican operative wanted to create a profile of the perfect presidential candidate to run against in general election, then the profile would include the candidate’s race, ethnicity, name, record of public service, gaffes, religion and vulnerability to trivial issues.
If a Republican operative wanted to follow Nixon’s textbook strategy of how to defeat the Democrats in the general election, then Senator Obama could be considered the easiest candidate to defeat in November. Senator Obama is a textbook Republican opponent.
Mr. Obama is a black man, with an exotic name. His middle name Hussein corresponds with the last name of our mortal enemy and threat to national security Saddam Hussein. He can be labeled a Muslim because of his exotic name. Even though Senator Obama does attend a Christian church in Chicago, the church can be mildly labeled as Afro-centric, or menacingly considered as Black Separatist. Senator Obama is politically inexperienced having served in the United States Senate for only two years. Early in the presidential campaign, he was prone to gaffes and mistakes. As for trivial, nonsensical issues, Senator Obama does not wear a flag pin on his lapel, and he keeps his arms at his side during the National Anthem.
The propaganda wing of the Republican Party is an active participant in the practice to undermine the Democratic nomination process. The Weekly Standard editor, Fox News political analyst, former GOP strategist and evil embodied William Kristol was extremely grateful that Senator Obama defeated the Republican Party’s old nemesis Senator Hillary Clinton in Iowa. In a column, Kristol heaped praise on the Senator from Illinois, stating the young senator was charismatic, charming, “a gifted politician and an anti-politician.”[iii]
However, Kristol turned on Obama when it became apparent Senator Obama was going to become the Democratic nominee. In a February 25, 2008 Op-Ed article in the New York Times, Kristol implied Senator Obama was an elitist because he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel. By not wearing a flag pin, Senator Obama is indicating he is better than the Troglodytes and Neanderthals who still choose to wear flag pins.
Early in the presidential campaign, deceitful Fox News personality Sean Hannity was complementary towards Senator Obama, saying, “I think he’s a likeable person. She’s (Senator Clinton) not.” Hannity defended Obama whenever the Clintons “attacked” the Illinois Senator, but once Senator Obama built a comfortable lead among pledged delegates, Hannity proclaimed on his nationally syndicated radio show that “having Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee was the best way for a Republican to win in November.”[iv]
However, Republicans suddenly are voting for Senator Clinton. Maybe the enthusiastic crowds at the Obama campaign rallies are intimidating the Republicans. Or maybe the Republicans are imaging a debate between the youthful Obama and the charismatically challenged Arizona Senator John McCain.
Egomaniacal radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh prompted his listeners to vote Clinton in order to prolong the Democratic nomination process hoping the eventual nominee becomes irreparably damaged during the process.
In Texas, 119,000 Republicans voted for Senator Clinton providing her with the margin of victory. According to an article in the Boston Globe, John Taylor, the Republican chairman of Madison County in Texas said, “Some people there that I recognized voting said they were going to do some damage if they could… These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall.”[v]
The Republicans want the nominating process to continue hoping Senator Clinton at best will walk away with the Democratic nomination against the wishes of the voters, thus damaging the party beyond repair, or at worst deliver a crucial setback against Senator Obama that will linger until the general election. The Republicans want to run against a damaged opponent.
It is ironic that Republicans are hoping their mortal enemies (the Clintons) will be an important factor in Senator McCain capturing the presidency. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton is willingly enabling the vast Right Wing Conspiracy in achieving its dastardly goals.
The method of nominating a Democratic candidate for president is compromised. Republicans cannot be trusted to fairly participate in the process. Republicans have demonstrated in the past a tendency to sabotage. For the sake of future elections, the Democratic Party should consider locking out Republicans and independents from the nomination process.
Anyone who believes such groupthink is impossible should watch videotape of the people who were trying to disrupt the 2000 ballot recount in Florida. Sprinkled throughout the angry white faces were active congressional Republican staffers trying to stop the recount.
The only way to truly know if the method of choosing the Democratic nominee was compromised by unethical, deceitful, untrustworthy, double-crossing Republicans would be the actual general election results in November. If Senator Obama candidacy implodes, if he loses in a landslide to Senator McCain, then it can be argued the process is indeed compromised.
[i] Real Time with Bill Maher, February 15, 2008.
[ii] “All the President’s Men,” Warner Brothers, 1976.
[iii] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[iv] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[v] Hardball with Chris Matthews, March 18, 2008.
First is money because Senator Obama raised the most money. Second is message because the Illinois Senator’s message of hope captured the imagination of the electorate.
It was the third “M” that caught my attention – Malice. The conservative pollster explained registered republican voters were voting in open primaries for Senator Obama in order to cause mischief in the Democratic nomination process.
The third “M” was a reminder of a conversation between Robert Redford and Hal Holbrook in the great movie “All the President’s Men” regarding the “infiltration of the Democrats.”
Mr. Holbrook, portraying the mysterious White House insider Deep Throat, described the methods used by the Nixon Administration to sabotage the Democratic Party. In a dark, secluded parking garage, Deep Throat said to Bob Woodward, “They were frightened of Muskie and look who got destroyed. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they’re running against. They bugged. They followed people. Fake press leaks. Fake letters. They cancelled Democratic campaign rallies. They investigated Democratic private lives. They planted spies, stole documents and on and on.”[ii]
Disgraced former President Richard M Nixon was traumatized by his narrow defeat in the 1960 presidential election to the handsome and charismatic Massachusetts Senator John F Kennedy. In Nixon's psychologically scarred mind, the best way to insure victory and prevent further trauma was to rig the nomination process of the opposing party.
Nixon left two lasting legacies in electoral politics in the United States. First is the use of the “Southern Strategy,” a blatant attempt to exploit racial anxieties of southern, white Democrats, thus siphoning votes from the Democratic Party. Second, willfully sabotaging the nominating process in the Democratic Party. Both strategies are still used by the Republican Party.
An assessment of recent Democratic presidential nomination campaigns offers proof of the Republican Party’s nefarious activities. In 2004, former Vermont governor Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination before a single ballot was cast. He was considered the front-runner because the former Governor from Vermont raised the most campaign funds. The central issue of his candidacy was his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Conservatives quickly labeled Governor Dean an extreme liberal whose political views are in sharp contrast with the values of Americans. But Dean was running against the war in Iraq – an unnecessary war initiated over fictitious reasons by a fallacious President. It was not in the Republican Party’s best interest to run against an antiwar candidate.
After a disappointing third place finish in the Iowa Caucus, Governor Dean attempted to rally his disillusioned supporters with a rousing speech. Except that Governor Dean was a little too enthusiastic. He concluded his concession speech with an exuberant “BYAW!!!” The media replayed what became known as the “Dean Scream” over and over again. Democrats became disenchanted with the crazy, red-faced liberal from Vermont.
Americans find such exuberance distasteful in a presidential candidate; however not knowing the names of foreign leaders is acceptable. Foreign leaders are foreigners and in America nobody cares about foreigners.
However, the Republican Party still needed a beatable opponent. The next best thing to a liberal from Vermont was a liberal from Massachusetts. As a state, Massachusetts is America’s patsy, forever obliviously wearing a “Kick Me” sign carefully pasted on its back.
Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam War credentials were a significant problem considering he was running against the two virtual draft dodgers, President George Bush and Vice President Dick (I had other priorities) Cheney, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth eventually torpedoed Senator Kerry’s chances of becoming president.
In 1992, the Republican Party was probably salivating at the chance to run against a draft dodging, womanizing liberal from a small, indistinguishable southern state. However, Texas billionaire Ross Perot siphoned votes from President Bush and the Republicans lost the presidency to serial womanizer Governor Bill Clinton.
In 1988, the Democratic Party nominated former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. However, the front-runner for the nomination was former Colorado Senator Gary Hart – who lost the Democratic nomination to former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984.
Senator Hart’s candidacy dropped dead after the Miami Herald published a picture of the amorous Senator with a lovely woman, who was not his wife, on his lap.
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was another strong candidate whose candidacy did not survive an alleged scandal. It was disclosed that Senator Biden was lifting passages from a speech made by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock in his own speeches. Senator Biden was forced to drop out of the presidential race.
Governor Dukakis was an attractive candidate to run against. He was the former governor of Massachusetts, also known to conservatives as the most liberal state in America. To conservatives, liberalism is just another word for evil. Massachusetts has such a negative connotation in conservative politics that former Governor Mitt Romney often refused to name the state he served in. Instead, he used euphemisms to describe the state; such as I was the governor of a difficult state.
Governor Dukakis was attacked during the presidential campaign because he was against laws mandating the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as governor he supported prison furloughs, and he failed to clean up the environmental disaster in Boston Harbor.
Governor Dukakis’ was not only an easy candidate to run against, but he also provided an excuse to use the “Southern Strategy” against the Democrats. It was the prison furlough issue that was especially damaging once a commercial of a menacing black man named Willie Horton began circulating on television. What better way to scare white people to death than to introduce the possibility of a Democratic president releasing angry black men from prison who will rape and kill white women upon tasting freedom.
Governor Dukakis was such a weak candidate; the Republicans did not even have use the Governor’s Greek ancestry against him, but it does not mean the Republicans would not be incapable of using such tactics in the future.
Three out of the last four Democratic nominees fit a profile the Republicans are comfortable running against, beatable liberals with heavy baggage.
Senator Barack Obama developed a sizable lead in the Democratic nomination process by vaulting over the inevitable Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama accomplished this feat by mobilizing young voters who are participating in the nominating process for the first time. In addition, Obama has attracted independents and Republicans. In open primaries, 57% of registered republicans crossed party lines and voted for Senator Obama.
If Frank Luntz’s assertion that Republicans are voting for Senator Obama simply to cause mischief in the Democratic Party is true, then the Republican Party is involved in a blatant attempt to sabotage the Democratic Party. Republican mischief is a threat to the integrity of the nomination process. The method of nominating a candidate has been compromised.
If a Republican operative wanted to create a profile of the perfect presidential candidate to run against in general election, then the profile would include the candidate’s race, ethnicity, name, record of public service, gaffes, religion and vulnerability to trivial issues.
If a Republican operative wanted to follow Nixon’s textbook strategy of how to defeat the Democrats in the general election, then Senator Obama could be considered the easiest candidate to defeat in November. Senator Obama is a textbook Republican opponent.
Mr. Obama is a black man, with an exotic name. His middle name Hussein corresponds with the last name of our mortal enemy and threat to national security Saddam Hussein. He can be labeled a Muslim because of his exotic name. Even though Senator Obama does attend a Christian church in Chicago, the church can be mildly labeled as Afro-centric, or menacingly considered as Black Separatist. Senator Obama is politically inexperienced having served in the United States Senate for only two years. Early in the presidential campaign, he was prone to gaffes and mistakes. As for trivial, nonsensical issues, Senator Obama does not wear a flag pin on his lapel, and he keeps his arms at his side during the National Anthem.
The propaganda wing of the Republican Party is an active participant in the practice to undermine the Democratic nomination process. The Weekly Standard editor, Fox News political analyst, former GOP strategist and evil embodied William Kristol was extremely grateful that Senator Obama defeated the Republican Party’s old nemesis Senator Hillary Clinton in Iowa. In a column, Kristol heaped praise on the Senator from Illinois, stating the young senator was charismatic, charming, “a gifted politician and an anti-politician.”[iii]
However, Kristol turned on Obama when it became apparent Senator Obama was going to become the Democratic nominee. In a February 25, 2008 Op-Ed article in the New York Times, Kristol implied Senator Obama was an elitist because he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel. By not wearing a flag pin, Senator Obama is indicating he is better than the Troglodytes and Neanderthals who still choose to wear flag pins.
Early in the presidential campaign, deceitful Fox News personality Sean Hannity was complementary towards Senator Obama, saying, “I think he’s a likeable person. She’s (Senator Clinton) not.” Hannity defended Obama whenever the Clintons “attacked” the Illinois Senator, but once Senator Obama built a comfortable lead among pledged delegates, Hannity proclaimed on his nationally syndicated radio show that “having Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee was the best way for a Republican to win in November.”[iv]
However, Republicans suddenly are voting for Senator Clinton. Maybe the enthusiastic crowds at the Obama campaign rallies are intimidating the Republicans. Or maybe the Republicans are imaging a debate between the youthful Obama and the charismatically challenged Arizona Senator John McCain.
Egomaniacal radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh prompted his listeners to vote Clinton in order to prolong the Democratic nomination process hoping the eventual nominee becomes irreparably damaged during the process.
In Texas, 119,000 Republicans voted for Senator Clinton providing her with the margin of victory. According to an article in the Boston Globe, John Taylor, the Republican chairman of Madison County in Texas said, “Some people there that I recognized voting said they were going to do some damage if they could… These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall.”[v]
The Republicans want the nominating process to continue hoping Senator Clinton at best will walk away with the Democratic nomination against the wishes of the voters, thus damaging the party beyond repair, or at worst deliver a crucial setback against Senator Obama that will linger until the general election. The Republicans want to run against a damaged opponent.
It is ironic that Republicans are hoping their mortal enemies (the Clintons) will be an important factor in Senator McCain capturing the presidency. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton is willingly enabling the vast Right Wing Conspiracy in achieving its dastardly goals.
The method of nominating a Democratic candidate for president is compromised. Republicans cannot be trusted to fairly participate in the process. Republicans have demonstrated in the past a tendency to sabotage. For the sake of future elections, the Democratic Party should consider locking out Republicans and independents from the nomination process.
Anyone who believes such groupthink is impossible should watch videotape of the people who were trying to disrupt the 2000 ballot recount in Florida. Sprinkled throughout the angry white faces were active congressional Republican staffers trying to stop the recount.
The only way to truly know if the method of choosing the Democratic nominee was compromised by unethical, deceitful, untrustworthy, double-crossing Republicans would be the actual general election results in November. If Senator Obama candidacy implodes, if he loses in a landslide to Senator McCain, then it can be argued the process is indeed compromised.
[i] Real Time with Bill Maher, February 15, 2008.
[ii] “All the President’s Men,” Warner Brothers, 1976.
[iii] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[iv] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[v] Hardball with Chris Matthews, March 18, 2008.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Still Waters
Former New York congresswoman and vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro created a firestorm with her comments about current Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. During a newspaper interview in late February, Ms Ferraro said, “If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in? Absolutely not.”[i]
Her comments are similar to the remarks former Detroit Piston Hall of Fame guard and current failure as team president and coach of the New York Knicks Isiah Thomas made about Boston Celtic great Larry Bird. After a heroic game winning play by the legendary Larry Bird, Thomas said, “I think Larry is a very, very good basketball player. He’s an exceptional talent, but I have to agree with Rodman. If he were black, he’d be just another good guy.”[ii]
During an interview the following day, Ms Ferraro said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. If he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is caught up in the concept.”[iii]
It is considered rude in polite society to pass judgment on anyone’s personal appearance, but if Senator Obama was a woman, he would be an ugly transsexual.
It is ironic that at this point in the campaign Barack Obama is lucky to be a black man running for president. He was not considered black enough in the beginning of the campaign. However, Senator Obama is very fortunate to be running for president of the United States of America at this point in our history because Americans in the 21st century are so enlightened and are free of intolerance, bigotry and racism.
Just ask the factually challenged commentator for Fox News (using the word News in its most diluted context) Bill O’Reilly who was fortunate to have dinner with Reverend Al Sharpton at the famous restaurant Sylvia’s in Harlem in September 2007.
Mr. O’Reilly was amazed African Americans had good manners. On his widely syndicated radio show he said, “I could not get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it was run by blacks, primarily black patronage… There wasn’t one person screaming, ‘M-fer, I want more ice tea.’ You know, I mean everyone was – it was like going to an Italian restaurant in an all white suburb in the sense people were sitting there, and they were all ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.”[iv] Black people acting civilized in a restaurant, who would have ever believed that was possible. Makes you wonder if O’Reilly was aware black people discovered the diverse, practical applications of fire.
Unfortunately for Ms Ferraro, she was branded a racist for her comments. However, Ms Ferraro did not retract her statements and did not apologize. Instead, she defended her statements in another series of interviews. The former candidate for vice president said, “The spin on the words has been that somehow I was addressing his qualifications. I was not. I was celebrating the fact that the black community in this country has come out with pride in his historic candidacy and has shown itself in the polls. You’d think he’d say, yes, thank you for doing that. That is the kind of thing that we want to say thank you to the community. Instead, I’m charged with being a racist.”[v]
A white Obama would not be considered a viable candidate, but his skin color and exotic name makes him a feasible candidate. Senator Obama and his supporters should be ashamed of themselves. They are ungrateful because they did not thank Ms Ferraro for pointing out the Illinois Senator is the token black candidate in the Democratic Party.
Asked if she regretted making the statements about Senator Obama, Ms Ferraro said, “Absolutely not. I have to tell you, my concern has been over how I’ve been treated as well. And I’m hurt, absolutely hurt by how they have taken this thing, spun it to imply that in any way I’m racist.”[vi]
Granted, her remarks are not as sophisticated as presidential puppeteer Karl Rove who in a column for the Wall Street Journal wrote Senator Obama’s “trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard.” Or that Senator Obama “is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.”[vii] A black man who is a lazy, basketball-playing, hustler. I’m surprised Rove did not include in his brilliant observations that Senator Obama was a Colt 45 swilling, watermelon and fried chicken eating, weed smoking, street hustler trying to steal the Democratic nomination from an older white woman.
And it’s not like it ever happened before, for example in 1988 when Ms Ferraro mentioned, “Because of his radical views, if Jesse Jackson were not black, he would not be in the race.”[viii]
In another interview, Ms Ferraro said, “Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I’m white. If they think they’re going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don’t know me.”[ix]
It is a sad day in America when a white person is not allowed to speak freely and elaborately express their opinions about black people without fear of the consequences or repercussions.
Let’s get technical about the term racism before analyzing Ms Ferraro’s ridiculous statements regarding Senator Obama’s good fortune of being a black man with a funny name running for president in the United States. Racism is a codified policy of discrimination against minorities like apartheid in South Africa, or the infamous Jim Crow laws in the south.
Ms Ferraro is not advocating that Senator Obama should not be allowed to run for president because he is black. In addition, she is not arguing people should not vote for Senator Obama because he is black. Ms Ferraro does not have the power to deny Senator Obama the Democratic nomination for president because he is black. On that basis, she is not a racist.
But she is a bigot. Ms Ferraro believes the reason Senator Obama’s campaign has thrived is because he is black. Ms Ferraro statements about Barack Obama can be interpreted to mean he is not qualified to be president.
Ms Ferraro’s statement, (“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position), is dangerously similar to the same statement former Los Angeles Dodgers vice president in charge of player personnel Al Campanis said during an interview with Ted Koppel on Nightline in April, 1987. Mr. Campanis answered the reason there were no black managers, general managers, or black owners because “I truly believe that they may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager or perhaps a general manager.”[x]
Trapped by his bigoted remark, Mr. Campanis attempted to extricate himself by saying, “Well, I don’t say all of them, but certainly they are short. How many quarterbacks do you have, how many pitchers do you have, that are black?”[xi]
Later on in the interview, Mr. Campanis said, “Why are black men or black people not good swimmers? Because they don’t have buoyancy.”[xii]
In Ms Ferraro’s defense, she never said Senator Obama could not float or swim. However, a white Barack Obama would not be considered a quality candidate. The white Obama would not have defeated Senator Clinton in 27 contests.
When she said, “He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is caught up in the concept,” Ms Ferraro sounds like overbearing conservative talk show host and make-believe football analyst Rush Limbaugh when in October 2003 he made a comment about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. “What we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well – black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he did not deserve.”[xiii]
Limbaugh injected his two favorite topics in his football analysis: “Affirmative Action and Liberal Media Bias.” McNabb is an NFL quarterback due to affirmative action and the liberal media elite is rooting for the unqualified black quarterback to succeed in order to alleviate the white man’s guilt over slavery.
Through her histrionics, Ms Ferraro is blaming the media for not being tough with Senator Obama because of the fear of being accused of racism. The media is over compensating its coverage of Senator Obama by not asking hard questions, and not vetting him to the public. As a Clinton supporter, she shares the same frustrations as the Clinton campaign, witnessing a virtual unknown walking away with the presidential nomination. Both are looking for someone to blame, someone to scapegoat for Senator Clinton’s failure to capture the Democratic nomination. Ms Ferraro and Ms Clinton have focused on the media.
Ms Ferraro could have made the same argument without mentioning race. She could have said, “He’s young, he’s new, he’s exciting, he’s a great public speaker and people, especially young people, are caught up in the excitement, but Senator Obama’s supporters are not focusing on his inexperience. He’s been in the Senate for only two years, and that is not enough of a track record for a presidential candidate, especially in this very important election with so many important issues the country is facing.” There’s the argument against Senator Obama, and race was not mentioned.
Or Ms Ferraro could have mentioned Senator Obama’s race in the argument without sounding negative. Simply interject in the previous paragraph, “And the country is really excited about electing the first African American as president, but we should not let our excitement cloud our judgment about Senator Obama because he is inexperienced. In this election, our country needs to elect a president with more experience, and I believe Senator Clinton’s experience is greater than Senator Obama’s.”
Ms Ferraro’s comments instantly reminded me of a monologue from the exceptional police drama Homicide. In the episode “Colors,” a Turkish student was drunk and wearing KISS makeup. He mistakenly thought he was at the address of a KISS theme party. A white homeowner killed the Turkish student who would not leave.
The great actor Andre Braugher confronts his partner in the Baltimore Police Department who is the cousin of the white homeowner. He says, “Your cousin’s racism is so deep, so much a part of him that he did not get a chance to think about what he was doing. Jim is worse than a Klansman because at least in their white sheets they are recognizable, but your cousin’s brand of bigotry is much more frightening because like still waters, it runs deep. He doesn’t even see it himself.”[xiv]
Ms Ferraro’s bigotry runs so deep that she is unable to recognize it. Senator Obama has run a race neutral presidential campaign, but unfortunately Ms Ferraro can only see is a black man running for president, and that is truly sad.
Maybe that is the real threat of an Obama campaign for president. Our dirty little secrets, fears, insecurities and hatred will be exposed and on display for the whole world to see. Deep inside we know the still waters of racism run very deep, but we do not want anyone else to see it. Otherwise, the rest of the world will see us for what we really are, nothing but a backward people, backwater country hicks with nuclear weapons.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[ii] Josh Levin, “Follow That Bird,” December 12, 2005.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[iv] Media Matters for America, “O’Reilly Surprised There Was No Difference Between Harlem Restaurant and Other New York Restaurants,” September 21, 2007.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[vii] Karl Rove, “Why Hillary Won,” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2008.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[ix] Katherine Q Seelye and Julie Bosman, “Ferraro’s Obama Remarks Become Talk of Campaign,” New York Times, March 12, 2008.
[x] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xi] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xii] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xiii] Richard Sandomir, “Limbaugh Resigns From ESPN’s NFL Show,” New York Times, October 2, 2003.
[xiv] Homicide, “Colors,” April 28, 1995.
Her comments are similar to the remarks former Detroit Piston Hall of Fame guard and current failure as team president and coach of the New York Knicks Isiah Thomas made about Boston Celtic great Larry Bird. After a heroic game winning play by the legendary Larry Bird, Thomas said, “I think Larry is a very, very good basketball player. He’s an exceptional talent, but I have to agree with Rodman. If he were black, he’d be just another good guy.”[ii]
During an interview the following day, Ms Ferraro said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. If he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is caught up in the concept.”[iii]
It is considered rude in polite society to pass judgment on anyone’s personal appearance, but if Senator Obama was a woman, he would be an ugly transsexual.
It is ironic that at this point in the campaign Barack Obama is lucky to be a black man running for president. He was not considered black enough in the beginning of the campaign. However, Senator Obama is very fortunate to be running for president of the United States of America at this point in our history because Americans in the 21st century are so enlightened and are free of intolerance, bigotry and racism.
Just ask the factually challenged commentator for Fox News (using the word News in its most diluted context) Bill O’Reilly who was fortunate to have dinner with Reverend Al Sharpton at the famous restaurant Sylvia’s in Harlem in September 2007.
Mr. O’Reilly was amazed African Americans had good manners. On his widely syndicated radio show he said, “I could not get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it was run by blacks, primarily black patronage… There wasn’t one person screaming, ‘M-fer, I want more ice tea.’ You know, I mean everyone was – it was like going to an Italian restaurant in an all white suburb in the sense people were sitting there, and they were all ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.”[iv] Black people acting civilized in a restaurant, who would have ever believed that was possible. Makes you wonder if O’Reilly was aware black people discovered the diverse, practical applications of fire.
Unfortunately for Ms Ferraro, she was branded a racist for her comments. However, Ms Ferraro did not retract her statements and did not apologize. Instead, she defended her statements in another series of interviews. The former candidate for vice president said, “The spin on the words has been that somehow I was addressing his qualifications. I was not. I was celebrating the fact that the black community in this country has come out with pride in his historic candidacy and has shown itself in the polls. You’d think he’d say, yes, thank you for doing that. That is the kind of thing that we want to say thank you to the community. Instead, I’m charged with being a racist.”[v]
A white Obama would not be considered a viable candidate, but his skin color and exotic name makes him a feasible candidate. Senator Obama and his supporters should be ashamed of themselves. They are ungrateful because they did not thank Ms Ferraro for pointing out the Illinois Senator is the token black candidate in the Democratic Party.
Asked if she regretted making the statements about Senator Obama, Ms Ferraro said, “Absolutely not. I have to tell you, my concern has been over how I’ve been treated as well. And I’m hurt, absolutely hurt by how they have taken this thing, spun it to imply that in any way I’m racist.”[vi]
Granted, her remarks are not as sophisticated as presidential puppeteer Karl Rove who in a column for the Wall Street Journal wrote Senator Obama’s “trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard.” Or that Senator Obama “is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.”[vii] A black man who is a lazy, basketball-playing, hustler. I’m surprised Rove did not include in his brilliant observations that Senator Obama was a Colt 45 swilling, watermelon and fried chicken eating, weed smoking, street hustler trying to steal the Democratic nomination from an older white woman.
And it’s not like it ever happened before, for example in 1988 when Ms Ferraro mentioned, “Because of his radical views, if Jesse Jackson were not black, he would not be in the race.”[viii]
In another interview, Ms Ferraro said, “Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I’m white. If they think they’re going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don’t know me.”[ix]
It is a sad day in America when a white person is not allowed to speak freely and elaborately express their opinions about black people without fear of the consequences or repercussions.
Let’s get technical about the term racism before analyzing Ms Ferraro’s ridiculous statements regarding Senator Obama’s good fortune of being a black man with a funny name running for president in the United States. Racism is a codified policy of discrimination against minorities like apartheid in South Africa, or the infamous Jim Crow laws in the south.
Ms Ferraro is not advocating that Senator Obama should not be allowed to run for president because he is black. In addition, she is not arguing people should not vote for Senator Obama because he is black. Ms Ferraro does not have the power to deny Senator Obama the Democratic nomination for president because he is black. On that basis, she is not a racist.
But she is a bigot. Ms Ferraro believes the reason Senator Obama’s campaign has thrived is because he is black. Ms Ferraro statements about Barack Obama can be interpreted to mean he is not qualified to be president.
Ms Ferraro’s statement, (“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position), is dangerously similar to the same statement former Los Angeles Dodgers vice president in charge of player personnel Al Campanis said during an interview with Ted Koppel on Nightline in April, 1987. Mr. Campanis answered the reason there were no black managers, general managers, or black owners because “I truly believe that they may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager or perhaps a general manager.”[x]
Trapped by his bigoted remark, Mr. Campanis attempted to extricate himself by saying, “Well, I don’t say all of them, but certainly they are short. How many quarterbacks do you have, how many pitchers do you have, that are black?”[xi]
Later on in the interview, Mr. Campanis said, “Why are black men or black people not good swimmers? Because they don’t have buoyancy.”[xii]
In Ms Ferraro’s defense, she never said Senator Obama could not float or swim. However, a white Barack Obama would not be considered a quality candidate. The white Obama would not have defeated Senator Clinton in 27 contests.
When she said, “He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is caught up in the concept,” Ms Ferraro sounds like overbearing conservative talk show host and make-believe football analyst Rush Limbaugh when in October 2003 he made a comment about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. “What we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well – black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he did not deserve.”[xiii]
Limbaugh injected his two favorite topics in his football analysis: “Affirmative Action and Liberal Media Bias.” McNabb is an NFL quarterback due to affirmative action and the liberal media elite is rooting for the unqualified black quarterback to succeed in order to alleviate the white man’s guilt over slavery.
Through her histrionics, Ms Ferraro is blaming the media for not being tough with Senator Obama because of the fear of being accused of racism. The media is over compensating its coverage of Senator Obama by not asking hard questions, and not vetting him to the public. As a Clinton supporter, she shares the same frustrations as the Clinton campaign, witnessing a virtual unknown walking away with the presidential nomination. Both are looking for someone to blame, someone to scapegoat for Senator Clinton’s failure to capture the Democratic nomination. Ms Ferraro and Ms Clinton have focused on the media.
Ms Ferraro could have made the same argument without mentioning race. She could have said, “He’s young, he’s new, he’s exciting, he’s a great public speaker and people, especially young people, are caught up in the excitement, but Senator Obama’s supporters are not focusing on his inexperience. He’s been in the Senate for only two years, and that is not enough of a track record for a presidential candidate, especially in this very important election with so many important issues the country is facing.” There’s the argument against Senator Obama, and race was not mentioned.
Or Ms Ferraro could have mentioned Senator Obama’s race in the argument without sounding negative. Simply interject in the previous paragraph, “And the country is really excited about electing the first African American as president, but we should not let our excitement cloud our judgment about Senator Obama because he is inexperienced. In this election, our country needs to elect a president with more experience, and I believe Senator Clinton’s experience is greater than Senator Obama’s.”
Ms Ferraro’s comments instantly reminded me of a monologue from the exceptional police drama Homicide. In the episode “Colors,” a Turkish student was drunk and wearing KISS makeup. He mistakenly thought he was at the address of a KISS theme party. A white homeowner killed the Turkish student who would not leave.
The great actor Andre Braugher confronts his partner in the Baltimore Police Department who is the cousin of the white homeowner. He says, “Your cousin’s racism is so deep, so much a part of him that he did not get a chance to think about what he was doing. Jim is worse than a Klansman because at least in their white sheets they are recognizable, but your cousin’s brand of bigotry is much more frightening because like still waters, it runs deep. He doesn’t even see it himself.”[xiv]
Ms Ferraro’s bigotry runs so deep that she is unable to recognize it. Senator Obama has run a race neutral presidential campaign, but unfortunately Ms Ferraro can only see is a black man running for president, and that is truly sad.
Maybe that is the real threat of an Obama campaign for president. Our dirty little secrets, fears, insecurities and hatred will be exposed and on display for the whole world to see. Deep inside we know the still waters of racism run very deep, but we do not want anyone else to see it. Otherwise, the rest of the world will see us for what we really are, nothing but a backward people, backwater country hicks with nuclear weapons.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[ii] Josh Levin, “Follow That Bird,” December 12, 2005.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[iv] Media Matters for America, “O’Reilly Surprised There Was No Difference Between Harlem Restaurant and Other New York Restaurants,” September 21, 2007.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[vii] Karl Rove, “Why Hillary Won,” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2008.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[ix] Katherine Q Seelye and Julie Bosman, “Ferraro’s Obama Remarks Become Talk of Campaign,” New York Times, March 12, 2008.
[x] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xi] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xii] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xiii] Richard Sandomir, “Limbaugh Resigns From ESPN’s NFL Show,” New York Times, October 2, 2003.
[xiv] Homicide, “Colors,” April 28, 1995.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Lady McClinton
With each passing day, Senator Hillary Clinton is clearly demonstrating characteristics that make her unfit to be president. It’s not just that she refused to admit (at least until the 20th Democratic Presidential debate) that she made a mistake in voting for the authorization to invade Iraq in 2002.
Or that Senator Clinton deliberately misrepresented the Levin Amendment in order to justify her vote authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.
Or that she reneged on her promise not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because the disobedient states ignored the rules of the Democratic National Committee and scheduled their primaries earlier than New Hampshire.
However, after losing primaries and caucuses in several “insignificant” states, Senator Clinton needed to change the narrative of her struggling presidential campaign. She included victories in Michigan (she was the only Democratic candidate on the ballot) and Florida to pad her primary victories resume. Senator Clinton is demanding the delegates from both states be seated at the Democratic National Convention, which would potentially increase her pledged delegate totals.
After ending her losing streak at 12 by winning the Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island primaries, Senator Clinton is arguing that the Democratic Party Superdelegates should correct the mistakes made by the delusional voters who were so overwhelmed by the charisma of Senator Barack Obama that they failed to notice the young Illinois Senator with the Middle Eastern middle name is virtually inexperienced for the demands of the presidency.
In an interview, Ms Clinton stated, “New challenges are being put to my opponent. Superdelegates are supposed to take all of that information on board and they’re supposed to be exercising the judgment that people would have exercised if this information… had been available several months ago.” Furthermore, Senator Clinton argues, “That is why we have Superdelegates. Superdelegates were put into this process about 35 or 36 years ago for a purpose. That’s the way the rules are… The voters have said by more than two to one, they want this to go on and they want it to go on they want to make sure we pick the nominee who is best able to win.”[i]
We pause this amusing essay at this time to point out another disingenuous remark by the Senator from New York.
Senator Clinton claims voters by a margin of more than two to one want the nominating process to continue. Senator Clinton won Ohio by 10%, and Texas by 4%, hardly a two to one margin. Her only convincing victory was in Rhode Island, but Rhode Island is a small, insignificant state according to her standard, therefore it does not count.
Furthermore, Senator Clinton’s victory in Texas may have been the result of mischief perpetrated by the Republican Party. Self-absorbed radio talk show host and recovering prescription drug addict Rush Limbaugh asked his listeners to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton. The Republican nomination process was settled. Senator John McCain won the nomination. According to the Limbaugh Effect, as described on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, eight percent of Senator Clinton popular vote consisted of Limbaugh listeners who followed the talk show host’s instructions.[ii]
We now return to “Lady McClinton” already in progress.
The Clinton campaign believes their success in March 4th primaries was due to a television commercial intended to scare Americans into believing Senator Obama is not qualified to answer an ominous telephone call at three o’clock in the morning, therefore he is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.
Another scare tactic was leaking to the media a picture of Senator Obama wearing traditional Somali clothes during a trip to Kenya in 2006. It was enough to make you wonder what type of phone call a black man with the middle name Hussein and dressed like that would receive at three o’clock in the morning.
Senator Clinton contends that being married to the Commander in Chief for eight years and traveling to 80 countries in the capacity as First Lady makes her eminently qualified to be Commander in Chief even though her trips around the world during the Clinton presidency were nothing more than “photo ops” and opportunities to have “tea and cookies in those countries.”[iii]
As First Lady, she did not negotiate treaties with foreign governments. Ms Clinton “did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crisis in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.”[iv]
Her most important official role during the Clinton Administration was when she fronted the healthcare initiative. To put this failure in perspective, Ms Clinton was unable to produce an acceptable universal healthcare package when the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
It is only a matter a time before the Clinton campaign starts arguing that Chelsea Clinton, current First Lady Laura Bush, the President’s twin daughters Barbara and Jenna, and President Bush’s Scottish terrier Barney are more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama. Unbeknownst to the public, First Pet Barney performs an invaluable role in the Bush Administration. President Bush has stated he will not withdraw from Iraq “even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.” In waging an unnecessary and fraudulent war, it is important for the president to have the unequivocal support of his pet. Furthermore, what better ally in the War on Terror than a Scottish terrier.
Senator Clinton argues that Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than her democratic rival. “I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the Commander in Chief threshold. And I believe I’ve done that, certainly Senator McCain has done that.”[v]
As a campaign development, her argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama is most alarming. Senator Clinton has given the Republican attack machine a gift, an argument that can undermine Senator Obama’s chances of becoming the next president. It is an argument that also disqualifies him for the vice presidency because Mr. Obama lacks experience. At a news conference, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience. And Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.”[vi]
Senator Clinton betrayed her own political party in order to further her own political career. Her kitchen sink strategy is predicated on diminishing and damaging Senator Obama, not to the voters, but to the Superdelegates. Senator Clinton has to prove to the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election against Senator McCain. This was considered “rat-fucking” during the Nixon presidency. It is also known as the “double cross.”
Senator Clinton cannot win the nomination based on pledged delegates. Senator Obama leads by a comfortable margin of 136 pledged delegates. She cannot win the nomination based on total number of states won during the primaries and caucuses. The Illinois Senator has won 27 contests through March 8, 2008. Ms Clinton has won 14 contests (not including Michigan and Florida). The ambitious Senator from New York may not win the popular vote. Her only alternative is to convince the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election.
To accomplish this goal, Senator Clinton has decided to wage a negative campaign against the young Senator from Illinois – including the argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be president.
Senator Obama has two options to counter Ms Clinton’s kitchen sink strategy. First, he can counteract with a negative campaign against Senator Clinton, but at the risk of being called a fraud by Ms Clinton and the Mediacracy. Mr. Obama’s campaign is premised on being above the pettiness, nastiness and divisiveness of prior political campaigns. A negative campaign will damage his reputation and campaign narrative.
Second, Senator Obama continues running a positive campaign. Simply ignore Senator Clinton’s damaging attacks. However, Mr. Obama may be perceived as weak, thus reinforcing the perception that he is not tough enough to be president, a premise the Clinton campaign will present to the Superdelegates.
But there is a third option. Senator Obama can make an argument to the Superdelegates that Senator Clinton cannot be trusted. For all intents and purposes, Ms Clinton endorsed Senator McCain for president. If she turned against a fellow Democrat during the presidential campaign, then she is very capable of turning against other Democrats as president. As president, Ms Clinton may have a list of enemies in the Democratic Party who did not support her during the nominating process. Mr. Obama has to convince the Superdelegates that he would be an easier president to work with than Senator Clinton.
To the electorate, Senator Obama can make the following argument: Why are Senator Clinton and Senator McCain so determined from denying me the nomination? Mr. Obama can argue Ms Clinton is colluding with Mr. McCain to prevent him from becoming president. The old style of politics joined forces to keep him out of the White House. Old style politics depends on conflict, which will be the result of a Clinton or McCain presidency. Senator Obama can continue his campaign narrative of bringing a new era of politics.
Furthermore, the Illinois Senator should argue that the Republican Party would prefer to run against Senator Clinton because the Republicans believe she would be easier to defeat in the general election.
Also, Senator Obama can claim Senator Clinton does not value voter participation. Her campaign disparages Senator Obama’s victories in smaller states, calling these states insignificant. Senator Obama can argue Senator Clinton considers voters from small states insignificant. Can you, the voter, support a candidate who considers your vote insignificant?
In addition, Senator Clinton is attempting to nullify the will of the people by appealing to the Superdelegates, thus circumventing their votes.
Adopting this strategy will help Senator Obama’s candidacy because it reinforces his campaign narrative of inclusiveness, uniting the country, and providing hope for a better future.
As for ruthless Senator Clinton, the list of unappealing characteristics continues to grow. She voted for an unnecessary war. The Democratic Party needed a true leader to stop President Bush from launching an unnecessary war against Iraq. Instead, Ms Clinton misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching the war with Iraq. She reneged on her word regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries. Ms Clinton wants to thwart the will of the voters by having the Superdelegates decide the nominee. The determined Senator betrayed her own party by practically endorsing the Republican nominee over Senator Obama. She is willing and able to fracture the Democratic Party in order to achieve her goal. Do we need any more proof Senator Clinton should not be the Democratic nominee?
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[iv] Patrick Healy, “The Resume Factor: Those 2 Terms as First Lady,” The New York Times, December 26, 2007.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
Or that Senator Clinton deliberately misrepresented the Levin Amendment in order to justify her vote authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.
Or that she reneged on her promise not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because the disobedient states ignored the rules of the Democratic National Committee and scheduled their primaries earlier than New Hampshire.
However, after losing primaries and caucuses in several “insignificant” states, Senator Clinton needed to change the narrative of her struggling presidential campaign. She included victories in Michigan (she was the only Democratic candidate on the ballot) and Florida to pad her primary victories resume. Senator Clinton is demanding the delegates from both states be seated at the Democratic National Convention, which would potentially increase her pledged delegate totals.
After ending her losing streak at 12 by winning the Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island primaries, Senator Clinton is arguing that the Democratic Party Superdelegates should correct the mistakes made by the delusional voters who were so overwhelmed by the charisma of Senator Barack Obama that they failed to notice the young Illinois Senator with the Middle Eastern middle name is virtually inexperienced for the demands of the presidency.
In an interview, Ms Clinton stated, “New challenges are being put to my opponent. Superdelegates are supposed to take all of that information on board and they’re supposed to be exercising the judgment that people would have exercised if this information… had been available several months ago.” Furthermore, Senator Clinton argues, “That is why we have Superdelegates. Superdelegates were put into this process about 35 or 36 years ago for a purpose. That’s the way the rules are… The voters have said by more than two to one, they want this to go on and they want it to go on they want to make sure we pick the nominee who is best able to win.”[i]
We pause this amusing essay at this time to point out another disingenuous remark by the Senator from New York.
Senator Clinton claims voters by a margin of more than two to one want the nominating process to continue. Senator Clinton won Ohio by 10%, and Texas by 4%, hardly a two to one margin. Her only convincing victory was in Rhode Island, but Rhode Island is a small, insignificant state according to her standard, therefore it does not count.
Furthermore, Senator Clinton’s victory in Texas may have been the result of mischief perpetrated by the Republican Party. Self-absorbed radio talk show host and recovering prescription drug addict Rush Limbaugh asked his listeners to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton. The Republican nomination process was settled. Senator John McCain won the nomination. According to the Limbaugh Effect, as described on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, eight percent of Senator Clinton popular vote consisted of Limbaugh listeners who followed the talk show host’s instructions.[ii]
We now return to “Lady McClinton” already in progress.
The Clinton campaign believes their success in March 4th primaries was due to a television commercial intended to scare Americans into believing Senator Obama is not qualified to answer an ominous telephone call at three o’clock in the morning, therefore he is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.
Another scare tactic was leaking to the media a picture of Senator Obama wearing traditional Somali clothes during a trip to Kenya in 2006. It was enough to make you wonder what type of phone call a black man with the middle name Hussein and dressed like that would receive at three o’clock in the morning.
Senator Clinton contends that being married to the Commander in Chief for eight years and traveling to 80 countries in the capacity as First Lady makes her eminently qualified to be Commander in Chief even though her trips around the world during the Clinton presidency were nothing more than “photo ops” and opportunities to have “tea and cookies in those countries.”[iii]
As First Lady, she did not negotiate treaties with foreign governments. Ms Clinton “did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crisis in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.”[iv]
Her most important official role during the Clinton Administration was when she fronted the healthcare initiative. To put this failure in perspective, Ms Clinton was unable to produce an acceptable universal healthcare package when the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
It is only a matter a time before the Clinton campaign starts arguing that Chelsea Clinton, current First Lady Laura Bush, the President’s twin daughters Barbara and Jenna, and President Bush’s Scottish terrier Barney are more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama. Unbeknownst to the public, First Pet Barney performs an invaluable role in the Bush Administration. President Bush has stated he will not withdraw from Iraq “even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.” In waging an unnecessary and fraudulent war, it is important for the president to have the unequivocal support of his pet. Furthermore, what better ally in the War on Terror than a Scottish terrier.
Senator Clinton argues that Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than her democratic rival. “I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the Commander in Chief threshold. And I believe I’ve done that, certainly Senator McCain has done that.”[v]
As a campaign development, her argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama is most alarming. Senator Clinton has given the Republican attack machine a gift, an argument that can undermine Senator Obama’s chances of becoming the next president. It is an argument that also disqualifies him for the vice presidency because Mr. Obama lacks experience. At a news conference, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience. And Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.”[vi]
Senator Clinton betrayed her own political party in order to further her own political career. Her kitchen sink strategy is predicated on diminishing and damaging Senator Obama, not to the voters, but to the Superdelegates. Senator Clinton has to prove to the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election against Senator McCain. This was considered “rat-fucking” during the Nixon presidency. It is also known as the “double cross.”
Senator Clinton cannot win the nomination based on pledged delegates. Senator Obama leads by a comfortable margin of 136 pledged delegates. She cannot win the nomination based on total number of states won during the primaries and caucuses. The Illinois Senator has won 27 contests through March 8, 2008. Ms Clinton has won 14 contests (not including Michigan and Florida). The ambitious Senator from New York may not win the popular vote. Her only alternative is to convince the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election.
To accomplish this goal, Senator Clinton has decided to wage a negative campaign against the young Senator from Illinois – including the argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be president.
Senator Obama has two options to counter Ms Clinton’s kitchen sink strategy. First, he can counteract with a negative campaign against Senator Clinton, but at the risk of being called a fraud by Ms Clinton and the Mediacracy. Mr. Obama’s campaign is premised on being above the pettiness, nastiness and divisiveness of prior political campaigns. A negative campaign will damage his reputation and campaign narrative.
Second, Senator Obama continues running a positive campaign. Simply ignore Senator Clinton’s damaging attacks. However, Mr. Obama may be perceived as weak, thus reinforcing the perception that he is not tough enough to be president, a premise the Clinton campaign will present to the Superdelegates.
But there is a third option. Senator Obama can make an argument to the Superdelegates that Senator Clinton cannot be trusted. For all intents and purposes, Ms Clinton endorsed Senator McCain for president. If she turned against a fellow Democrat during the presidential campaign, then she is very capable of turning against other Democrats as president. As president, Ms Clinton may have a list of enemies in the Democratic Party who did not support her during the nominating process. Mr. Obama has to convince the Superdelegates that he would be an easier president to work with than Senator Clinton.
To the electorate, Senator Obama can make the following argument: Why are Senator Clinton and Senator McCain so determined from denying me the nomination? Mr. Obama can argue Ms Clinton is colluding with Mr. McCain to prevent him from becoming president. The old style of politics joined forces to keep him out of the White House. Old style politics depends on conflict, which will be the result of a Clinton or McCain presidency. Senator Obama can continue his campaign narrative of bringing a new era of politics.
Furthermore, the Illinois Senator should argue that the Republican Party would prefer to run against Senator Clinton because the Republicans believe she would be easier to defeat in the general election.
Also, Senator Obama can claim Senator Clinton does not value voter participation. Her campaign disparages Senator Obama’s victories in smaller states, calling these states insignificant. Senator Obama can argue Senator Clinton considers voters from small states insignificant. Can you, the voter, support a candidate who considers your vote insignificant?
In addition, Senator Clinton is attempting to nullify the will of the people by appealing to the Superdelegates, thus circumventing their votes.
Adopting this strategy will help Senator Obama’s candidacy because it reinforces his campaign narrative of inclusiveness, uniting the country, and providing hope for a better future.
As for ruthless Senator Clinton, the list of unappealing characteristics continues to grow. She voted for an unnecessary war. The Democratic Party needed a true leader to stop President Bush from launching an unnecessary war against Iraq. Instead, Ms Clinton misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching the war with Iraq. She reneged on her word regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries. Ms Clinton wants to thwart the will of the voters by having the Superdelegates decide the nominee. The determined Senator betrayed her own party by practically endorsing the Republican nominee over Senator Obama. She is willing and able to fracture the Democratic Party in order to achieve her goal. Do we need any more proof Senator Clinton should not be the Democratic nominee?
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[iv] Patrick Healy, “The Resume Factor: Those 2 Terms as First Lady,” The New York Times, December 26, 2007.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
