OK, this is a big steamy pile:
Rev. Jeremiah Wright is at it again. Referring to senior White House staff who are Jewish, he said: "Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office."
Um, Rev. Wright... at this rate, he's not going to talk to you. Period.
Showing posts with label jeremiah wright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jeremiah wright. Show all posts
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Obama and ACORN
This is bad news for Obama, no matter what. HERE. Today the FBI raided the offices of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) on well substantiated allegations of voter registration fraud, in the hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations, mostly in Nevada and North Carolina, states where Obama and McCain are running in a statistical tie. Obama's extensive involvement with ACORN is unquestionable.
Even if Obama had nothing to do with ACORN (not true, and no way to spin it,) the media and McCain will capitalize on it.
Even if Obama knew nothing about the fraudulent and widespread corruption of ACORN (highly unlikely) the media and McCain will capitalize on it.
And, if the worst is true.... well, then it's true.
At the very least, it is an undeniable justification for McCain requesting recounts and vote authentications in close states after Election Day, if he loses. And, he just might not.
This is what I meant when I said in another article titled, "Chill Baby, Chill," that these kinds of things raise big red flags for me. What if it's true? This is not the first time by far Obama and his campaign have been accused of unethically or illegally influencing voters. With his past associations coming back under the magnifying glass, there is no way Obama is not going to be pressed on several issues he has been evasive about, chiefly unanswered questions about Bill Ayers. I have said before that I find Ayers and Obama's complicated involvement with him to be a serious problem. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that issue alone, but the snowball effect of continued revelations about Obama's other less than antiseptic liaisons genuinely frightens me.
I truly detest saying something like this, but I would rather face scorn from the Obama faithful than keep my mouth shut and regret it later: what if America is about to be hoodwinked by a truly subversive radical? If none of it is true, a rational, factual and earnest explanation (something Obama is adept at) would satisfy even me, the most reluctant of his supporters. But those are not forthcoming, rather it is more spin, more indignation, more accusations of "Swiftboating" and racism, and still, no answers. Obama never convincingly addressed his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the glaring contradictions are still apparent for anyone to see. He has openly dodged the Ayers questions. Thus far, there has been no major response on the ACORN connections, which are documented and plentiful. Obama will not get away with claiming ignorance on this one. I'm very interested to see what he will say and do.
Even if Obama had nothing to do with ACORN (not true, and no way to spin it,) the media and McCain will capitalize on it.
Even if Obama knew nothing about the fraudulent and widespread corruption of ACORN (highly unlikely) the media and McCain will capitalize on it.
And, if the worst is true.... well, then it's true.
At the very least, it is an undeniable justification for McCain requesting recounts and vote authentications in close states after Election Day, if he loses. And, he just might not.
This is what I meant when I said in another article titled, "Chill Baby, Chill," that these kinds of things raise big red flags for me. What if it's true? This is not the first time by far Obama and his campaign have been accused of unethically or illegally influencing voters. With his past associations coming back under the magnifying glass, there is no way Obama is not going to be pressed on several issues he has been evasive about, chiefly unanswered questions about Bill Ayers. I have said before that I find Ayers and Obama's complicated involvement with him to be a serious problem. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that issue alone, but the snowball effect of continued revelations about Obama's other less than antiseptic liaisons genuinely frightens me.
I truly detest saying something like this, but I would rather face scorn from the Obama faithful than keep my mouth shut and regret it later: what if America is about to be hoodwinked by a truly subversive radical? If none of it is true, a rational, factual and earnest explanation (something Obama is adept at) would satisfy even me, the most reluctant of his supporters. But those are not forthcoming, rather it is more spin, more indignation, more accusations of "Swiftboating" and racism, and still, no answers. Obama never convincingly addressed his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the glaring contradictions are still apparent for anyone to see. He has openly dodged the Ayers questions. Thus far, there has been no major response on the ACORN connections, which are documented and plentiful. Obama will not get away with claiming ignorance on this one. I'm very interested to see what he will say and do.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Wright's Gift Is To McCain, Not Clinton
I have waited a few days to comment on the reemergence of Jeremiah Wright into the Democratic campaign schematic. When I first watched Wright's comments on Monday, April 28th at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., something strange happened to me. I first discovered there was a new Wright splash by reading a news article from a Google search for "Barack Obama," something I do daily. Reading the headlines, it started to dawn on me, This is serious. As I read further, I realized I needed to go find the video and watch it, hear the tone of voice, see the body language, make a judgment on my own before I read much more opinion. I am skeptical of all news, I needed to see it for myself.
As I watched the video, I realized I had that sinking feeling you get when something terrible has happened. My hands were shaking. I thought to myself, Why am I reacting like this? Answers started to race through my head, but ultimately I realized I was reacting to Wright's hostility, and to the naked hatred toward America, toward white people, even toward Barack Obama. Wright was speaking with the ire of the betrayed, but the person he was betraying was himself. Any damage control his week long speaking tour had done was annihilated.
I immediately thought to myself, Why would he do it?
This was an unequivocal condemnation of Barack Obama, and an absolutely no doubt reaffirmation of the worst case reality of who Wright is, and what his beliefs are. Simultaneously I realized, no matter how Obama handles it, there can be no good result for him. Rev. Wright drew a line in the sand. Was this the "sea changer" everyone has been waiting for, that everyone said could never happen? There are very good reasons to be confident in Obama's ability to overcome adversity on the campaign trail. However, the Wright blow may have been the knockout Clinton can't seem to score. Immediately, headlines started calling it a "gift to Clinton" and asking, Is Wright Working For Clinton? I say, if it was a gift to anyone, it was to McCain and to the GOP, who had already dealt a low blow with race baiting ads. Clinton was already pulling ahead of both McCain and Obama in national and state level head to heads before the Wright explosion. Poll results that include April 28th are when Obama started to slip behind McCain, which tells me the GOP made the real gain from it.
The conclusion I came to was this: maybe Wright thinks it would be better for his cause if Obama lost, even if that means McCain would win. Race baiting works both ways. Maybe inflaming the race controversy is what Wright wants. I believe we can agree that race inequality is still a major problem in America. It is wrong to assume Obama and Wright have the same mission. Obama is running for President. Wright is a black advocate who has dedicated his life to the African American community. Yes, he's angry, inflammatory and divisive, and you can't really blame him. But this means he has different priorities, and maybe the crash and burn of Obama's presidential hopes offers more pique to racial issues than electing a black man would. Obama has said, "He does not speak for me," and soundly denounced him. This gives Wright fuel in two new ways. First, he can still damn America for rejecting a black man. And, he can damn Obama for abandoning his church and say, "If he had stuck with us..." I have not been able to find any new polls, but I guarantee this is going to cost Obama some of the black vote on Tuesday. Electing a black man could easily be seen as a "good enough" gesture on the part of white America, and derail real progress. I have no doubt that Wright wishes to see greater division, greater conflict, and greater urgency added to race issues. The greater the conflict, the greater the solutions, the more serious and real it seems. Most things get worse before they get better, and I believe Wright wants it to get worse. I don't agree with him, but I think it's a valid point of view. In spite of the pretty face we put on race relations in America, there are deep racist sentiments and huge cultural divisions in our country, that are easily ignited. Revolutionaries and agitators use these tactics all the time.
Obama now faces a personal conflict that I have seen all along. He has framed himself as the post-racial candidate, the unifier, the person who can bring real change to America. I believe up to this point, he has been able to take the black vote for granted, has not had to address why, the obvious, because he is black. Now, we see him vehemently denounce the beliefs of his pastor of twenty years, but because of that long relationship, and his previous creative dodging of the issue, we have to wonder what's true. Is Wright wrong now when he was expressing valid anger before? I believe the issue for Obama is not if he agrees with Wright or not, it is that his trustworthiness has been challenged.
Up to now, Obama's honesty armor had very few dings in it, but the Wright scandal overall has cast doubt and suspicion over him. Wright completely dismissed the claim that Obama has never heard his anti-American rantings. Now, it is up to voters to decide how they feel about it, and it is hurting him. It is also hurting him at a time when Clinton is gaining, riding momentum from a six-week winning streak. This creates a perception that it's Clinton's fault, but Wright was the author of this, both times. Obama made his bed the first time around by dancing around Wright and redirecting the debate to the broader issue of race. It all seemed like a good idea at the time, it seemed Obama has shaken off the Wright problem. No such luck, as the Reverend would not be denied, and blew up the controversy exponentially, resulting in a political nuclear bomb for Obama. Wright has given validity to all other challenges to Obama's integrity, chiefly the Ayers problem. I personally find Obama's association with Ayers quite a bit more disturbing than Wright. And, the extremity of Obama's perceived "religion" is drawn into question. Ask Mitt Romney what being in an extreme religion does to a political campaign. Obama just got blacker to white people and whiter to black people. It's a very serious problem, and one that I am not sure his campaign knows how to handle. It also represents the first serious stumbling point for his campaign strategists and PR team, who have been genius up to this point.
Is it over for Barack? I don't know, but I do know it is very bad news, and another bad week for the Illinois senator. He may still win the Democratic nomination, but the presidency? That picture is getting very bleak. On Tuesday when North Carolina and Indiana go to the polls, we'll see for sure. The results and the exit polls will tell the tale, as pollsters and pundits have been unable to do. I am withholding any predictions for the time being.
As I watched the video, I realized I had that sinking feeling you get when something terrible has happened. My hands were shaking. I thought to myself, Why am I reacting like this? Answers started to race through my head, but ultimately I realized I was reacting to Wright's hostility, and to the naked hatred toward America, toward white people, even toward Barack Obama. Wright was speaking with the ire of the betrayed, but the person he was betraying was himself. Any damage control his week long speaking tour had done was annihilated.
I immediately thought to myself, Why would he do it?
This was an unequivocal condemnation of Barack Obama, and an absolutely no doubt reaffirmation of the worst case reality of who Wright is, and what his beliefs are. Simultaneously I realized, no matter how Obama handles it, there can be no good result for him. Rev. Wright drew a line in the sand. Was this the "sea changer" everyone has been waiting for, that everyone said could never happen? There are very good reasons to be confident in Obama's ability to overcome adversity on the campaign trail. However, the Wright blow may have been the knockout Clinton can't seem to score. Immediately, headlines started calling it a "gift to Clinton" and asking, Is Wright Working For Clinton? I say, if it was a gift to anyone, it was to McCain and to the GOP, who had already dealt a low blow with race baiting ads. Clinton was already pulling ahead of both McCain and Obama in national and state level head to heads before the Wright explosion. Poll results that include April 28th are when Obama started to slip behind McCain, which tells me the GOP made the real gain from it.
The conclusion I came to was this: maybe Wright thinks it would be better for his cause if Obama lost, even if that means McCain would win. Race baiting works both ways. Maybe inflaming the race controversy is what Wright wants. I believe we can agree that race inequality is still a major problem in America. It is wrong to assume Obama and Wright have the same mission. Obama is running for President. Wright is a black advocate who has dedicated his life to the African American community. Yes, he's angry, inflammatory and divisive, and you can't really blame him. But this means he has different priorities, and maybe the crash and burn of Obama's presidential hopes offers more pique to racial issues than electing a black man would. Obama has said, "He does not speak for me," and soundly denounced him. This gives Wright fuel in two new ways. First, he can still damn America for rejecting a black man. And, he can damn Obama for abandoning his church and say, "If he had stuck with us..." I have not been able to find any new polls, but I guarantee this is going to cost Obama some of the black vote on Tuesday. Electing a black man could easily be seen as a "good enough" gesture on the part of white America, and derail real progress. I have no doubt that Wright wishes to see greater division, greater conflict, and greater urgency added to race issues. The greater the conflict, the greater the solutions, the more serious and real it seems. Most things get worse before they get better, and I believe Wright wants it to get worse. I don't agree with him, but I think it's a valid point of view. In spite of the pretty face we put on race relations in America, there are deep racist sentiments and huge cultural divisions in our country, that are easily ignited. Revolutionaries and agitators use these tactics all the time.
Obama now faces a personal conflict that I have seen all along. He has framed himself as the post-racial candidate, the unifier, the person who can bring real change to America. I believe up to this point, he has been able to take the black vote for granted, has not had to address why, the obvious, because he is black. Now, we see him vehemently denounce the beliefs of his pastor of twenty years, but because of that long relationship, and his previous creative dodging of the issue, we have to wonder what's true. Is Wright wrong now when he was expressing valid anger before? I believe the issue for Obama is not if he agrees with Wright or not, it is that his trustworthiness has been challenged.
Up to now, Obama's honesty armor had very few dings in it, but the Wright scandal overall has cast doubt and suspicion over him. Wright completely dismissed the claim that Obama has never heard his anti-American rantings. Now, it is up to voters to decide how they feel about it, and it is hurting him. It is also hurting him at a time when Clinton is gaining, riding momentum from a six-week winning streak. This creates a perception that it's Clinton's fault, but Wright was the author of this, both times. Obama made his bed the first time around by dancing around Wright and redirecting the debate to the broader issue of race. It all seemed like a good idea at the time, it seemed Obama has shaken off the Wright problem. No such luck, as the Reverend would not be denied, and blew up the controversy exponentially, resulting in a political nuclear bomb for Obama. Wright has given validity to all other challenges to Obama's integrity, chiefly the Ayers problem. I personally find Obama's association with Ayers quite a bit more disturbing than Wright. And, the extremity of Obama's perceived "religion" is drawn into question. Ask Mitt Romney what being in an extreme religion does to a political campaign. Obama just got blacker to white people and whiter to black people. It's a very serious problem, and one that I am not sure his campaign knows how to handle. It also represents the first serious stumbling point for his campaign strategists and PR team, who have been genius up to this point.
Is it over for Barack? I don't know, but I do know it is very bad news, and another bad week for the Illinois senator. He may still win the Democratic nomination, but the presidency? That picture is getting very bleak. On Tuesday when North Carolina and Indiana go to the polls, we'll see for sure. The results and the exit polls will tell the tale, as pollsters and pundits have been unable to do. I am withholding any predictions for the time being.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
We'll See On Wright
I honestly don't know what I think about the Wright situation, or its fallout. I am hesitant even to wade in. I feel that I should not participate in any way in any sort of negative portrayal of Barack Obama. At the same time, it is this kind of insulation and protective treatment that even got the Wright debate any sort of positive light. For hours after Obama's already-famous "Race Speech" news networks were lining up liberal panels and commentators to give it the best spin. So, out of the gate, all it got was praise, and that set the tone. The idea that all it is getting is praise is dead wrong, and I think the blinders that Democrats in general are wearing over the issue is a serious shortcoming.
One thing I am sure I think: I believe that the answer to the question, "Has Obama addressed the Wright situation effectively," is three-fold. Yes, he has explained himself to white liberals. No, he has not explained himself acceptably to anyone else. And, in spite of tacit acceptance of his explanation by and large in the political venue, I don't think anyone really believes he "didn't hear" Rev. Wright's inflammatory beliefs.
Another thing I am sure I think: Obama is in trouble over this, and spin as they might, the Wright thing is not going away. Clinton got slammed for "bringing it up again" when in fact it was Obama who brought it up first, fresh off an R&R trip over the Easter weekend. I find it increasingly hard to ignore the dichotomy of claiming he was unaware of Wright's remarks, then spending twenty minutes excusing them. If this was Clinton, the news networks would have annihilated her over it, not matter what she said.
I think Obama is trying to walk a dangerous tight rope. He needs to address the Wright situation. No doubt, he knows he needs to do this without alienating his black supporters who have been a staple in his wins overall, and who comprise a big chunk of voting Democrats. I don't think he's done a very good job of that. It's a rock and a hard place, and it's not one that I feel I know enough about to comment too deeply on. Again, what I do know is Obama's campaign knew as far back as June that Wright was going to be a problem. This also underscores the flimsiness of his claim that he was "unaware."
I think we will see in Pennsylvania and again in North Carolina how well or poorly Obama has truly handled this issue. Polls are polls, and while the media is currently saying that Obama has recovered from the "Wright flap" I'm not so sure. His approval in the polls took a huge hit, and he has come back from it, but has not regained his footing. I think if it were not for Clinton's "Bosnia problem" which is presenting a sideways contrast, he would not have come back as much as he has. I also believe now that people are saying, "That was a wonderful speech, but I still wouldn't go to church there," Obama is now claiming he would have quit the church if Wright was not retiring. This little bit of rhetoric is going to cost him, as it is a backtrack, and a very quick change of tone. When the basis of his Wright defense is that he "didn't hear" how is going to defend that "would have left unless he did" sentiment?
One thing I am sure I think: I believe that the answer to the question, "Has Obama addressed the Wright situation effectively," is three-fold. Yes, he has explained himself to white liberals. No, he has not explained himself acceptably to anyone else. And, in spite of tacit acceptance of his explanation by and large in the political venue, I don't think anyone really believes he "didn't hear" Rev. Wright's inflammatory beliefs.
Another thing I am sure I think: Obama is in trouble over this, and spin as they might, the Wright thing is not going away. Clinton got slammed for "bringing it up again" when in fact it was Obama who brought it up first, fresh off an R&R trip over the Easter weekend. I find it increasingly hard to ignore the dichotomy of claiming he was unaware of Wright's remarks, then spending twenty minutes excusing them. If this was Clinton, the news networks would have annihilated her over it, not matter what she said.
I think Obama is trying to walk a dangerous tight rope. He needs to address the Wright situation. No doubt, he knows he needs to do this without alienating his black supporters who have been a staple in his wins overall, and who comprise a big chunk of voting Democrats. I don't think he's done a very good job of that. It's a rock and a hard place, and it's not one that I feel I know enough about to comment too deeply on. Again, what I do know is Obama's campaign knew as far back as June that Wright was going to be a problem. This also underscores the flimsiness of his claim that he was "unaware."
I think we will see in Pennsylvania and again in North Carolina how well or poorly Obama has truly handled this issue. Polls are polls, and while the media is currently saying that Obama has recovered from the "Wright flap" I'm not so sure. His approval in the polls took a huge hit, and he has come back from it, but has not regained his footing. I think if it were not for Clinton's "Bosnia problem" which is presenting a sideways contrast, he would not have come back as much as he has. I also believe now that people are saying, "That was a wonderful speech, but I still wouldn't go to church there," Obama is now claiming he would have quit the church if Wright was not retiring. This little bit of rhetoric is going to cost him, as it is a backtrack, and a very quick change of tone. When the basis of his Wright defense is that he "didn't hear" how is going to defend that "would have left unless he did" sentiment?
Sunday, March 16, 2008
McCain Already Acting Like President
Someone should knock on the Democratic party's door and remind them that the competition is on the other side of the aisle, and right now it's on the other side of the pond for a fundraiser.
It would sound something like this, "Hello? Yes. I was wondering if you have seen Senator McCain?" No, they haven't.
Why?
Because he is in Iraq "assessing the troop surge." It can't be too bad a PR trip, with more than half the foreign-deployed US military being in Iraq. McCain is traveling under the auspice of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, and the visit is his 8th in 5 years. McCain is pro-Iraq, but has criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war. Now that the troop surge McCain advocated is working, he is free to capitalize on being right, and gets the Bush stamp of approval. McCain is a popular candidate in the military demographic. While Senator McCain's official role on this trip is legitimate, there is no doubt the timing is political. Senators Clinton and Obama are tangling like angry cats, no one can hear over the din, and McCain strolls off to Iraq to start personally handling the war.
Also in McCain's palm pilot over the next week are meetings with Jordanian King Abdullah, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. While he is jaunting around the globe meeting with important world leaders and reinforcing the GOP agenda, Clinton and Obama will be busily destroying each other, nearly oblivious. The fighting between Clinton and Obama has created such a thick smoke screen that McCain doesn't even have to be in the country to campaign. The GOP and Bush are free to start a phased transition of control from Bush to McCain. As far as they are concerned, he is President-elect. I have no doubt that McCain is willing to adopt the Bush agenda in exchange for a bully pulpit endorsement.
Who's to say Clinton and Obama could not present a united front against McCain while still continuing their own campaigns? I think it is perceived as impossible at this time because of the vice-presidential bickering, which both have said is premature, but were forced to discuss it anyway. Both Democrats shied away from the VP question because they both knew that it was going to lead to trouble. But, the media and the pundits pushed the issue and they capitulated. This sparked off the latest infighting that has now escalated to name calling. See, it is so fascinating even I get distracted talking about it, and forget what I was really talking about: John McCain.
I'm going to say this every chance I get, until I'm heard: do not underestimate John McCain. In the most recent head-to-heads, all three presidential candidates are in a dead heat. But, it's sliding McCain's way against Obama, and Clinton's way against McCain. A week ago, Obama beat McCain in head-to-heads by 5 points, and Clinton was losing by 2 points. The head-to-head schematic is sliding back toward where it was in December, with Clinton the clear winner. But, it's much closer this time. As I said, it's a dead heat, less than 1 point separating any of them. That's excellent news for McCain and the GOP, and should be a dire warning to Democrats that their assumed victory in November is in jeopardy.
How do Democrats bail the ship? I think the answer is simple. Go back in time. Not literally, but back to when the Democratic race was about the issues. It didn't seem like it at the time, but it was. I'd love to hear one of Obama's inspirational speeches right now. I'd love to hear Clinton croaking on about health care and heartfelt moments with single mothers. Both campaigns are losing track of their core platforms and they need to get back to them.
I think there are signs that both want to, signaled by a willingness to participate in 2 debates, in spite of the obvious risks of what topics could come up. No doubt, there will be mutually agreed upon topics to be left alone. We need to see some "Democratic unity" between Clinton and Obama, something they have both shown when they appear together. If they are smart, and they both are, they will use their considerable media networks to author the upcoming debates to focus on the general election and the issues, not the identity of the candidates.
Democratic leadership has already indicated that the entire nominating process is going to be allowed to play out, up to and including the likelihood of the superdelegates deciding the race, with or without popular backing. What happens is going to be allowed to happen. So, for any Democratic candidacy to survive McCain's bid for the Oval Office, Clinton and Obama need to shape up. Instead of the race or gender card, it's time for someone to play the good sportsmanship card. It is possible to run a polite campaign. Classic principles of debate could and should be applied to the Democratic race right now. Clinton and Obama should bury the hatchet, shake hands, and agree to keep it clean. The GOP kept their process clean and focussed on the issues, and produced a nominee who is much stronger than anyone anticipated.
I was warning about McCain two years ago, and all of my arguments are coming true. I said McCain was a popular war hero with a long Congressional career, foreign relations expertise and a moderate image that would resonate with Independents and swing voters. Congratulating myself for predicting McCain's win is not what I want to do, and would be a hollow reward. I would much rather the attitude that Democrats are guaranteed to win in November be immediately dismissed. Fueled by Bush's deplorable image domestically and worldwide, and by the prevalent idea that Bush stole the presidency from Gore, Democrats feel a sense of entitlement to the Presidency. This is a terrible attitude to take toward actually winning.
Even though Clinton is getting slammed for being willing to do anything to win, I don't think anyone would damn her for using the same strategies against McCain. Conversely, if Rev. Wright flung a few honkey comments at McCain, probably everyone would chuckle and forget it. People delight in the humiliation of public figures, and as long as the fighting looks fair, all bets are off. There is a subtle but strong eye-for-an-eye current running in the Democratic campaign anyway. I think Dems will be willing to overlook almost anything as long as it helps secure a Blue president. America was founded on many Classical principles, and our government, a republic, was modeled after Classical and Roman deliberative bodies. I don't think party leadership even cares who the nominee is at this point, as long as one of them fairly wins the argument.
It would sound something like this, "Hello? Yes. I was wondering if you have seen Senator McCain?" No, they haven't.
Why?
Because he is in Iraq "assessing the troop surge." It can't be too bad a PR trip, with more than half the foreign-deployed US military being in Iraq. McCain is traveling under the auspice of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, and the visit is his 8th in 5 years. McCain is pro-Iraq, but has criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war. Now that the troop surge McCain advocated is working, he is free to capitalize on being right, and gets the Bush stamp of approval. McCain is a popular candidate in the military demographic. While Senator McCain's official role on this trip is legitimate, there is no doubt the timing is political. Senators Clinton and Obama are tangling like angry cats, no one can hear over the din, and McCain strolls off to Iraq to start personally handling the war.
Also in McCain's palm pilot over the next week are meetings with Jordanian King Abdullah, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. While he is jaunting around the globe meeting with important world leaders and reinforcing the GOP agenda, Clinton and Obama will be busily destroying each other, nearly oblivious. The fighting between Clinton and Obama has created such a thick smoke screen that McCain doesn't even have to be in the country to campaign. The GOP and Bush are free to start a phased transition of control from Bush to McCain. As far as they are concerned, he is President-elect. I have no doubt that McCain is willing to adopt the Bush agenda in exchange for a bully pulpit endorsement.
Who's to say Clinton and Obama could not present a united front against McCain while still continuing their own campaigns? I think it is perceived as impossible at this time because of the vice-presidential bickering, which both have said is premature, but were forced to discuss it anyway. Both Democrats shied away from the VP question because they both knew that it was going to lead to trouble. But, the media and the pundits pushed the issue and they capitulated. This sparked off the latest infighting that has now escalated to name calling. See, it is so fascinating even I get distracted talking about it, and forget what I was really talking about: John McCain.
I'm going to say this every chance I get, until I'm heard: do not underestimate John McCain. In the most recent head-to-heads, all three presidential candidates are in a dead heat. But, it's sliding McCain's way against Obama, and Clinton's way against McCain. A week ago, Obama beat McCain in head-to-heads by 5 points, and Clinton was losing by 2 points. The head-to-head schematic is sliding back toward where it was in December, with Clinton the clear winner. But, it's much closer this time. As I said, it's a dead heat, less than 1 point separating any of them. That's excellent news for McCain and the GOP, and should be a dire warning to Democrats that their assumed victory in November is in jeopardy.
How do Democrats bail the ship? I think the answer is simple. Go back in time. Not literally, but back to when the Democratic race was about the issues. It didn't seem like it at the time, but it was. I'd love to hear one of Obama's inspirational speeches right now. I'd love to hear Clinton croaking on about health care and heartfelt moments with single mothers. Both campaigns are losing track of their core platforms and they need to get back to them.
I think there are signs that both want to, signaled by a willingness to participate in 2 debates, in spite of the obvious risks of what topics could come up. No doubt, there will be mutually agreed upon topics to be left alone. We need to see some "Democratic unity" between Clinton and Obama, something they have both shown when they appear together. If they are smart, and they both are, they will use their considerable media networks to author the upcoming debates to focus on the general election and the issues, not the identity of the candidates.
Democratic leadership has already indicated that the entire nominating process is going to be allowed to play out, up to and including the likelihood of the superdelegates deciding the race, with or without popular backing. What happens is going to be allowed to happen. So, for any Democratic candidacy to survive McCain's bid for the Oval Office, Clinton and Obama need to shape up. Instead of the race or gender card, it's time for someone to play the good sportsmanship card. It is possible to run a polite campaign. Classic principles of debate could and should be applied to the Democratic race right now. Clinton and Obama should bury the hatchet, shake hands, and agree to keep it clean. The GOP kept their process clean and focussed on the issues, and produced a nominee who is much stronger than anyone anticipated.
I was warning about McCain two years ago, and all of my arguments are coming true. I said McCain was a popular war hero with a long Congressional career, foreign relations expertise and a moderate image that would resonate with Independents and swing voters. Congratulating myself for predicting McCain's win is not what I want to do, and would be a hollow reward. I would much rather the attitude that Democrats are guaranteed to win in November be immediately dismissed. Fueled by Bush's deplorable image domestically and worldwide, and by the prevalent idea that Bush stole the presidency from Gore, Democrats feel a sense of entitlement to the Presidency. This is a terrible attitude to take toward actually winning.
Even though Clinton is getting slammed for being willing to do anything to win, I don't think anyone would damn her for using the same strategies against McCain. Conversely, if Rev. Wright flung a few honkey comments at McCain, probably everyone would chuckle and forget it. People delight in the humiliation of public figures, and as long as the fighting looks fair, all bets are off. There is a subtle but strong eye-for-an-eye current running in the Democratic campaign anyway. I think Dems will be willing to overlook almost anything as long as it helps secure a Blue president. America was founded on many Classical principles, and our government, a republic, was modeled after Classical and Roman deliberative bodies. I don't think party leadership even cares who the nominee is at this point, as long as one of them fairly wins the argument.
Next In The Ring: Ferraro vs. Wright
I believe I have succeeded fairly well in my pledge to not attack Barack Obama personally. I have attacked his positions, his campaign claims and some personality characteristics (chiefly what I see as insulting arrogance) that I find unappealing. But, I have tried to stay away from personal slurs or attacks on his personal life or family (although I did call Michelle Obama a bitch, and I'll stick by that one. I've called Hillary Clinton a bitch too, in her defense.) I believe that Barack Obama has deeply felt and sincere personal convictions and I applaud him for those. I also believe that he has worked hard in his career to do what he feels is right, and has been the champion of many worthy political moments.
So there are no surprises, I'll give something away up front: Yes, I am about to defend Geraldine Ferraro. If you read this, examine my claims and my rationale, and read it without the "My Preferred Candidate Filter," and still disagree with me, fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as Ferraro has dramatically pointed out by saying, "I’m exercising my First Amendment rights. If they don’t like it, tough." [SOURCE] I believe the First Amendment is taking a front seat in the race argument that Ferraro brought to the forefront. Certainly Rev. Wright is quite aware of those rights and exercises them with zeal.
What I find ironic is that there is no direct link between Ferraro and Wright, and yet the two are now inexorably related. What I find further and more ironic, is that Wright's blatant anti-white racism is what turned the tide on justifying Ferraro, who claims she is being attacked because she is white. As I have not gone to Rev. Wright's church personally, and certainly never with Barack Obama, I have no idea if he did or did not hear these sentiments, as he claims. Downplaying Wright is pretty much the only way Obama can go on this. Straight up denouncing him would be very ugly for all kinds of reasons. But, obviously, he also has to distance himself from such inflammatory behavior.
I believe the core issue here is religion, not race. The fact that Wright's style of ministry is in essence Black Evangelism makes race the visual focus. I do not agree. I think the question Wright has our subconscious stewing on is, "Can we elect a president whose religion is radical in some way?" As far as the GOP goes, Mitt Romney had some pretty good ideas, but in the end his religion was the deal breaker. Religious convictions give us broad stroke ideas about a person's character. When religious convictions are used to portray a presidential candidate positively, there is ample justification for seeing the details.
It is hard to imagine Barack Obama was unaware of Wright's beliefs. Obama has attended Wright's church for 20 years, was married by him, his children were baptized by Wright, and he cites the Reverend as the inspiration for a book title. Wright was a member of Obama's campaign committee, and as early as June 2007, the campaign was doing damage control on Wright's potential impact. Unfortunately, the Democratic campaign tried so hard to keep race and gender out of it, that it is now the only place left to go. If Wright had never had an official place on the campaign staff to begin with, it would be a lot easier to downplay Wright's importance to Obama.
I don't want to demonize Wright. His preaching style is iconic, and he clearly cares very deeply for his congregation and for the well being of the African American community. The text of his "Audacity of Hope" sermon is really quite moving. Also, I agree with Wright about a few things. I don't think his social commentary is all that far off the mark, although his rabid honkey-hating does irritate. However, I do think on March 12th, only 4 days ago, Wright crossed the line by focusing his anti-white sermonizing against Hillary Clinton. There is no way Wright did not know what he was doing. He is a very intelligent man who has been directing the moral convictions of a large religious community for multiple decades. He also leveled a biting attack on Bill Clinton, claiming, "Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.” [SOURCE] Like him or not, claiming that Bill Clinton was not good for African Americans is pretty hard to justify. He came out swinging for minorities in general and African Americans were some of Clinton's most devoted constituents. This was very clearly a calculated attack by Wright.
The question is, how much do we hold Obama accountable for Wright? Hillary Clinton was immediately called to kick Ferraro off the campaign bus, and a failure to do so was spun as a "campaign killer." Geraldine Ferraro is not Clinton's chief religious adviser, and her role in the Clinton campaign was minor. Honestly, Ferraro is a dinosaur who represents one of the worst Democratic defeats in recent history. Her presence in the campaign at all was chiefly symbolic -- she was a woman on a presidential ballot. Wright, on the other hand, represented a major part of Obama's image, which was propelled into the limelight by the need for reassurances that Obama was not secretly Muslim. Obviously, Obama is not Muslim. Obviously he is a Christian, has a respectable / acceptable moral code. But, if Obama is going to put Wright forward as, "an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with," [SOURCE] we also rightly should ask, "So what do you agree with?" Obviously Wright's "damn the white man" sentiments aren't enough for Obama to quit going to church. So, we are faced with a presidential candidate who had said Ferraro's racist remarks should be ignored, but has as a role model a minister who regularly sermonizes race politics.
Race is a deciding issue in this campaign, like it or not. Geraldine Ferraro was certainly unrefined in pointing it out, but she's not wrong. Gender is a deciding factor, too. I find any claims that blacks are not voting for Obama because he's black and women are not voting for Clinton because she's a woman to be ludicrous. I don't think they are the biggest deciding factors, although I do believe they are the cause of it all. A political campaign whose historic significance is based solely on the race and gender of the presumed winners cannot exclude these factors in the outcome. Both Obama and Clinton will be cast as "champions" of their respective minorities. Obama represents post-race America, where we can have a black president at all. Clinton represents post-war of the sexes, where we can have a woman president at all. The irony is that either of them is challenged to seem like they have eclipsed their minority rather than avenged it. Wright is certainly casting Obama as an avenger, and has probably hurt Obama by putting him on a razor edge. He can't risk being seen as Afro-centric, but he also can't alienate the black vote by denouncing his church and what has long been a popular sentiment in Black Evangelism: damn the white man. This is a pretty unfair position to put anyone in, and it has got to sting, coming from the home front.
Unfortunately, because Obama jumped on Clinton to denounce Ferraro, Obama now has to answer the same questions about Wright. Clinton has smartly distanced herself from the Wright situation all together. This is something for Obama to sort out, it is personal to him, and it is not something the Clinton campaign is going to use as fodder. Of course people are implying Clinton is leaving it alone because it doesn't need any help to explode. I think this is a nasty and divisive argument. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for Clinton. Obviously, she is not going to get involved. There are so many reasons not to, and so many land mines if she does, it would be foolish to do anything but stay mute. No doubt, it is helping Clinton's image overall. She can't be blamed for it any more than Obama can be blamed for benefiting from Clinton-damaging scandals. While Clinton's response to Ferraro's comments was labeled as tepid, she did indicate first and most strongly that, "It's regrettable that any of our supporters — on both sides, because we both have this experience — say things that kind of veer off into the personal." [SOURCE]. Both candidates have started to advocate for laying off each other. I think this is the only encouraging sign in what is becoming a lurid and cutting campaign on both sides.
So there are no surprises, I'll give something away up front: Yes, I am about to defend Geraldine Ferraro. If you read this, examine my claims and my rationale, and read it without the "My Preferred Candidate Filter," and still disagree with me, fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as Ferraro has dramatically pointed out by saying, "I’m exercising my First Amendment rights. If they don’t like it, tough." [SOURCE] I believe the First Amendment is taking a front seat in the race argument that Ferraro brought to the forefront. Certainly Rev. Wright is quite aware of those rights and exercises them with zeal.
What I find ironic is that there is no direct link between Ferraro and Wright, and yet the two are now inexorably related. What I find further and more ironic, is that Wright's blatant anti-white racism is what turned the tide on justifying Ferraro, who claims she is being attacked because she is white. As I have not gone to Rev. Wright's church personally, and certainly never with Barack Obama, I have no idea if he did or did not hear these sentiments, as he claims. Downplaying Wright is pretty much the only way Obama can go on this. Straight up denouncing him would be very ugly for all kinds of reasons. But, obviously, he also has to distance himself from such inflammatory behavior.
I believe the core issue here is religion, not race. The fact that Wright's style of ministry is in essence Black Evangelism makes race the visual focus. I do not agree. I think the question Wright has our subconscious stewing on is, "Can we elect a president whose religion is radical in some way?" As far as the GOP goes, Mitt Romney had some pretty good ideas, but in the end his religion was the deal breaker. Religious convictions give us broad stroke ideas about a person's character. When religious convictions are used to portray a presidential candidate positively, there is ample justification for seeing the details.
It is hard to imagine Barack Obama was unaware of Wright's beliefs. Obama has attended Wright's church for 20 years, was married by him, his children were baptized by Wright, and he cites the Reverend as the inspiration for a book title. Wright was a member of Obama's campaign committee, and as early as June 2007, the campaign was doing damage control on Wright's potential impact. Unfortunately, the Democratic campaign tried so hard to keep race and gender out of it, that it is now the only place left to go. If Wright had never had an official place on the campaign staff to begin with, it would be a lot easier to downplay Wright's importance to Obama.
I don't want to demonize Wright. His preaching style is iconic, and he clearly cares very deeply for his congregation and for the well being of the African American community. The text of his "Audacity of Hope" sermon is really quite moving. Also, I agree with Wright about a few things. I don't think his social commentary is all that far off the mark, although his rabid honkey-hating does irritate. However, I do think on March 12th, only 4 days ago, Wright crossed the line by focusing his anti-white sermonizing against Hillary Clinton. There is no way Wright did not know what he was doing. He is a very intelligent man who has been directing the moral convictions of a large religious community for multiple decades. He also leveled a biting attack on Bill Clinton, claiming, "Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.” [SOURCE] Like him or not, claiming that Bill Clinton was not good for African Americans is pretty hard to justify. He came out swinging for minorities in general and African Americans were some of Clinton's most devoted constituents. This was very clearly a calculated attack by Wright.
The question is, how much do we hold Obama accountable for Wright? Hillary Clinton was immediately called to kick Ferraro off the campaign bus, and a failure to do so was spun as a "campaign killer." Geraldine Ferraro is not Clinton's chief religious adviser, and her role in the Clinton campaign was minor. Honestly, Ferraro is a dinosaur who represents one of the worst Democratic defeats in recent history. Her presence in the campaign at all was chiefly symbolic -- she was a woman on a presidential ballot. Wright, on the other hand, represented a major part of Obama's image, which was propelled into the limelight by the need for reassurances that Obama was not secretly Muslim. Obviously, Obama is not Muslim. Obviously he is a Christian, has a respectable / acceptable moral code. But, if Obama is going to put Wright forward as, "an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with," [SOURCE] we also rightly should ask, "So what do you agree with?" Obviously Wright's "damn the white man" sentiments aren't enough for Obama to quit going to church. So, we are faced with a presidential candidate who had said Ferraro's racist remarks should be ignored, but has as a role model a minister who regularly sermonizes race politics.
Race is a deciding issue in this campaign, like it or not. Geraldine Ferraro was certainly unrefined in pointing it out, but she's not wrong. Gender is a deciding factor, too. I find any claims that blacks are not voting for Obama because he's black and women are not voting for Clinton because she's a woman to be ludicrous. I don't think they are the biggest deciding factors, although I do believe they are the cause of it all. A political campaign whose historic significance is based solely on the race and gender of the presumed winners cannot exclude these factors in the outcome. Both Obama and Clinton will be cast as "champions" of their respective minorities. Obama represents post-race America, where we can have a black president at all. Clinton represents post-war of the sexes, where we can have a woman president at all. The irony is that either of them is challenged to seem like they have eclipsed their minority rather than avenged it. Wright is certainly casting Obama as an avenger, and has probably hurt Obama by putting him on a razor edge. He can't risk being seen as Afro-centric, but he also can't alienate the black vote by denouncing his church and what has long been a popular sentiment in Black Evangelism: damn the white man. This is a pretty unfair position to put anyone in, and it has got to sting, coming from the home front.
Unfortunately, because Obama jumped on Clinton to denounce Ferraro, Obama now has to answer the same questions about Wright. Clinton has smartly distanced herself from the Wright situation all together. This is something for Obama to sort out, it is personal to him, and it is not something the Clinton campaign is going to use as fodder. Of course people are implying Clinton is leaving it alone because it doesn't need any help to explode. I think this is a nasty and divisive argument. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for Clinton. Obviously, she is not going to get involved. There are so many reasons not to, and so many land mines if she does, it would be foolish to do anything but stay mute. No doubt, it is helping Clinton's image overall. She can't be blamed for it any more than Obama can be blamed for benefiting from Clinton-damaging scandals. While Clinton's response to Ferraro's comments was labeled as tepid, she did indicate first and most strongly that, "It's regrettable that any of our supporters — on both sides, because we both have this experience — say things that kind of veer off into the personal." [SOURCE]. Both candidates have started to advocate for laying off each other. I think this is the only encouraging sign in what is becoming a lurid and cutting campaign on both sides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
